Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?

1235713

Comments

  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,205member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    SDW, humor me and answer me this.



    You always scream that Bush has not done anything "remotely" criminal. Meanwhile people point out things he has been done tht can easily be considered criminal. They are definitely indictable.



    But my question is this. For a moment ignore the legal debate and look at the moral debate.



    Was what Bush has done less "wrong" then what Clinton did? Did Clinton do more harm to the country to deserve impeachment, while Bush didn't DESERVE impeachment?



    This is what's wrong with you.



    You don't know the difference between right and wrong.



    What Bush did I'm convinced was criminal, and at least needs to be heard in court to determine whether it was. But clearly, it was wrong on a level incomparable to anything Clinton ever did.



    That question is not valid because impeachment is a legal process, not one that judges morals. If it were different, Clinton would have been convicted for having sex with a 21 year old subordinate in the oval office, while married, and then going on TV and on tape and delibrately/knowingly lying about it. But he was impeached for the legal issues behind those activities...



    Now:



    Quote:

    You don't know the difference between right and wrong.



    Got a little case of projection happening there? The fact is that what you consider "wrong" I might support. For example, I fully support the Bush tax cuts. I supported the Iraq war. I supported Afghanistan. I think the US Attorney scandal is trumped up bullshit.

    I think we may have to go to war with Iran to stop them from getting the bomb. I think Iraq was a noble effort that has gone wrong, but was not undertaken on lies.



    Now let's look at YOUR perception of right and wrong. Let's look at Mr. Clinton's actions:



    1. The aforementioned sex scandal.



    2. Selling nuclear reactors to NK



    3. Treating terrorism as a law enforcement operation only.



    4. Selling out national security to China in the name of US Business Interests.



    5. Cutting funding for the US military



    6. Getting illegal campaign contributions and renting out the Lincoln Bedroom



    7. About 17 other sex scandals, possibly a rape.



    8. Raising taxes on the middle class. A lot.



    9. Blackhawk Down.



    10. Waco, TX.







    I guess all of that was "not as bad as killing tens of thousands and lying," which is your most likely retort as far as I can see.
  • jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post


    That's not a serious legal criticism.



    We try to prove the parties' state of mind all the time in law.



    It's pervasive.



    But no-- you need some outward conduct to prove intent obviously-- some evidence of additional conduct or motivation that elevates the crime to hate crime status. You still have to prove it and a jury still has to find that you did commit those crimes with that motivation and whatnot.



    I'm against it because it creates people who are more sacred in the eyes of the law than other citizens, when all are supposed to be equal under law. We should punish people differently because they are mean in a way that we find abnormally contemptible? Who gets to decide that? Aren't all victimizing crimes based on some degree of disrespect of other people?
  • shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post


    I'm against it because it creates people who are more sacred in the eyes of the law than other citizens, when all are supposed to be equal under law. We should punish people differently because they are mean in a way that we find abnormally contemptible? Who gets to decide that? Aren't all victimizing crimes based on some degree of disrespect of other people?



    That's a separate issue.



    I'm talking only about your characterization of hate crimes as "thought crimes."
  • brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dmz View Post


    Well -- agian -- misdirecting to (and misquoting) other hate speech, one more time, is irrelevant. Squirming's no fun, is it? If you could answer my points, you would have done so by now. Pretty darn disappointing.



    Once more, in English:



    ...misdirection into the Dachau reference, to avoid owning up to the hate that is out there -- that the cartoons you still refuse to countenance were/are an off-the-scale popular cultural hate-fest. It also gives you cover from countenancing the fact that the off-the-scale hate poured onto figures like Bush and Falwell is unhealthy and leads to worse. It also allows you to ignore my final point, that there is a disturbing trend involving writing people off if they disagree with you, to the point of dehumanizing them.



    Edit: And I don't think you'd touch that Noonan piece with a ten-foot pole.




    I answered all of your points very directly. I disputed the allegation that liberals are displaying over-the-top hate speech, and suggested that "evidence" of this comes from anonymous postings on the internet. I contrasted that with conservative rhetoric that comes not from anonymous internet trolls but the most popular and mainstream conservative pundits recommending the mass murder of Americans. I don't think any liberals, even anonymous internet trolls, have suggested such things.



    And I'm not going to let you get away with claiming that it is a misdirection for me to bring up your repeated comparison of liberals to Nazis and concentration camps and the slaughter of 40,000,000 souls while you're trying to make the point that liberal rhetoric is off-the-charts.
  • jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post


    That's a separate issue.



    I'm talking only about your characterization of hate crimes as "thought crimes."



    The fact that a person holds views outside of the mainstream does not make their crime any more or less serious. If some judge decides that you did something out of "hate" then you are being punished for both the crime, and your way of thinking. It is a way to punish people extra harshly for simply thinking in a socially distasteful way. And the government can decide at any time they want what is and is not socially distasteful or "hateful." We, as a people, have the individual right to believe whatever we want to believe. Adding extreme (by a fluid standard) beliefs into the process of determining punishment is, in essence, making their thoughts a crime as well.



    Every time a "protected class" member is killed, we look for hate crime. When it's a non-protected class, we don't. I think killing a person because they are gay should have the same penalty as killing someone because you dislike their tie. Equal action, equal punishment, equal victims.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Folks all we need is a little more of a smoking gun for impeachment. With a year to go there's a good chance it might surface. However that would leave us with Dick!



    Even a little while with him might be bad. However impeachment might sober some parties up.



    Food for thought.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    This is dumb.



    Nope! It's real.



    Get over it.
  • shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post


    Adding extreme beliefs into the process of determining punishment is, in essence, making their thoughts a crime as well.



    Ah.



    So murder must be a thought crime.



    Attempted murder? Thought crime.



    Misrepresentation in a contract? Thought crime!



    Assault? Thought crime definitely.



    See how odd it is when you fail to consider that we take into account the parties' state of mind throughout the law? We must be making their thoughts a crime too.
  • dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell View Post


    I answered all of your points very directly. I disputed the allegation that liberals are displaying over-the-top hate speech, and suggested that "evidence" of this comes from anonymous postings on the internet. I contrasted that with conservative rhetoric that comes not from anonymous internet trolls but the most popular and mainstream conservative pundits recommending the mass murder of Americans. I don't think any liberals, even anonymous internet trolls, have suggested such things.



    And I'm not going to let you get away with claiming that it is a misdirection for me to bring up your repeated comparison of liberals to Nazis and concentration camps and the slaughter of 40,000,000 souls while you're trying to make the point that liberal rhetoric is off-the-charts.



    BRussell, you answered none of the points. You denied people broadly in digg and elsewhere had a twisted feeding frenzy over Falwell's death, and then proceeded in a disorganized attempt to muddy the waters. It's a third-rate response, if it even qualifies as a response and not a deliberate obfuscation. There are broad issues that have been clarified for you again, and again, and again. You wont go near them; you would if you knew how.

















    (And, once again, you still haven't countenanced the cartoons (perhaps they don't exist as well?), an inaction which adds a notable amount of insincerity to your argument.)
  • brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post


    The fact that a person holds views outside of the mainstream does not make their crime any more or less serious. If some judge decides that you did something out of "hate" then you are being punished for both the crime, and your way of thinking. It is a way to punish people extra harshly for simply thinking in a socially distasteful way. And the government can decide at any time they want what is and is not socially distasteful or "hateful." We, as a people, have the individual right to believe whatever we want to believe. Adding extreme (by a fluid standard) beliefs into the process of determining punishment is, in essence, making their thoughts a crime as well.



    Every time a "protected class" member is killed, we look for hate crime. When it's a non-protected class, we don't. I think killing a person because they are gay should have the same penalty as killing someone because you dislike their tie. Equal action, equal punishment, equal victims.



    I'm curious, Jubelum, do you support anti-terrorism laws?
  • jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post


    See how odd it is when you fail to consider that we take into account the parties' state of mind throughout the law? We must be making their thoughts a crime too.







    You're not paying attention. The goal with hate crime legislation is to punish the extreme beliefs themselves in conjunction with the crime. Legal personal beliefs as aggravating circumstances. "Thinking wrongly" makes "acting wrongly" much, much more dire.



    If crime A gets 20 years, and crime A+ "abhorrent belief" gets 50 years, then that leaves one conclusion... that the abhorrent belief itself is punishable. Thinking "wrongly" is a crime.
  • jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell View Post


    I'm curious, Jubelum, do you support anti-terrorism laws?



    Definitions, please.
  • brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dmz View Post


    BRussell, you answered none of the points. You denied people broadly in digg and elsewhere had a twisted feeding frenzy over Falwell's death, and then proceeded in a disorganized attempt to muddy the waters. It's a third-rate response, if it even qualifies as a response and not a deliberate obfuscation. There are broad issues that have been clarified for you again, and again, and again. You wont go near them; you would if you knew how.

















    (And, once again, you still haven't countenanced the cartoons (perhaps they don't exist as well?), an inaction which adds a notable amount of insincerity to your 'argument.')



    dmz, I've never been to digg, and I don't know what it is, though from the sound of it, it is more anonymous internet troll postings. And I don't know what cartoons you're talking about. Perhaps you could provide a link. In the meantime, I do know that I refuted the examples that I could research (DailyKos and Huff-post), so I'm not exactly impressed by your track record. And I also know that I've seen very specific evidence of over-the-top, hateful language from you, and from mainstream conservative opinion-leaders.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    ***WHOOSH****



    The argument is not that he killed tens of thousands (which some might argue is perfectly acceptable) and lied (which is par for the course).



    The argument is that he lied to the American public, which resulted in the death of tens of thousands, and cost taxpayers their money, especially future taxpayers who will have to pay for the unprecedented debt that was also a result of the lying.



    See the difference?



    And I suppose you support the illegal wiretapping as well. Well of course you do. You've already said that if what Bush has done is proven illegal (i.e. he's proven to have committed a crime -- which is impeachable) he shouldn't be held accountable, because uh... because why again?



    You don't know the difference between right and wrong. And I'm not talking about policy.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    That question is not valid because impeachment is a legal process, not one that judges morals. If it were different, Clinton would have been convicted for having sex with a 21 year old subordinate in the oval office, while married, and then going on TV and on tape and delibrately/knowingly lying about it. But he was impeached for the legal issues behind those activities...



    Now:







    Got a little case of projection happening there? The fact is that what you consider "wrong" I might support. For example, I fully support the Bush tax cuts. I supported the Iraq war. I supported Afghanistan. I think the US Attorney scandal is trumped up bullshit.

    I think we may have to go to war with Iran to stop them from getting the bomb. I think Iraq was a noble effort that has gone wrong, but was not undertaken on lies.



    Now let's look at YOUR perception of right and wrong. Let's look at Mr. Clinton's actions:



    1. The aforementioned sex scandal.



    2. Selling nuclear reactors to NK



    3. Treating terrorism as a law enforcement operation only.



    4. Selling out national security to China in the name of US Business Interests.



    5. Cutting funding for the US military



    6. Getting illegal campaign contributions and renting out the Lincoln Bedroom



    7. About 17 other sex scandals, possibly a rape.



    8. Raising taxes on the middle class. A lot.



    9. Blackhawk Down.



    10. Waco, TX.







    I guess all of that was "not as bad as killing tens of thousands and lying," which is your most likely retort as far as I can see.



  • brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post


    Definitions, please.



    I'm talking about laws that people like the "Blind Sheik" have been convicted of. I'm talking about sentence enhancement laws that add punishment to people who commit an act such as blowing up a building if they're a part of a terrorist organization. I'm talking about laws that make it illegal to be a member of and transfer funds around in terrorist organizations. Are you in favor of those kinds of laws?
  • shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post


    If crime A gets 20 years, and crime A+ "abhorrent belief" gets 50 years, then that leaves one conclusion... that the abhorrent belief itself is punishable. Thinking "wrongly" is a crime.



    That's just plainly wrong.



    I can't think of a single circumstance in the law where we punish people solely for a belief.



    Unlike "thought crimes," there's gotta be some action in conjunction with the belief.
  • maxparrishmaxparrish Posts: 840member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    This is dumb.



    Yes it was a dumb list, but I decided to at least check out the first 'high crime' of Bush...



    HIGH CRIME: Election staff convicted in recount rig in Ohio 2004 presidential election that gave President Bush the electoral votes he needed to defeat



    Apparently two (or three) employees of the Cleavland Ohio County department - according to the prosecutor - wanted to avoid weeks and months of extra work in a full scale recount so they picked the 'sample' precencts that would likely give the least flaws in a limited hand recount. The employees claimed that they had always selected the districts to sample in the diverse county, and thought that was okay.



    Although they were convicted of serious negligence The prosecutor never claimed it was voter fraud, and accused them of trying to avoid a time-consuming and expensive process.



    And as it turned, in a County-Wide recount of the largest County in Ohio gained KERRY 17 votes...LOL...some conspiracy eh? (BTW they never mention the party affiliations of the workers, which usually means they are Democrats...that would be interesting to know).



    HELL YES THIS MAKES SENSE, IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT!
  • dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell View Post


    dmz, I've never been to digg, and I don't know what it is, though from the sound of it, it is more anonymous internet troll postings. And I don't know what cartoons you're talking about. Perhaps you could provide a link. In the meantime, I do know that I refuted the examples that I could research (DailyKos and Huff-post), so I'm not exactly impressed by your track record. And I also know that I've seen very specific evidence of over-the-top, hateful language from you, and from mainstream conservative opinion-leaders.



    BRussell!



    read carefully



    HuffPo and KOS are political, digg is not. digg is a popular site, with millions of users. The Falwell thread had over 1700 comments. They were bad. Really bad. people were digging posts like "I hope the fucker rots in hell" up by 600 and 700 diggs. The other sites showed comments of exactly the same broad response.





    Point #1 --> People are broadly showing creepy vicious hatred, hatred I can't find in recent memory, hatred Saddam Hussien didn't even get when he died.



    Point #2 --> This is bad.



    Point #3 --> This hatred can be likened to the unfeeling hatred of Nazis (sorry, but we are definitely in the ballpark)



    Point #4 --> Where can this level of hatred go? Answer: nowhere good. You raise children on the 'fundies are feces' routine and we have a recipe for trouble. Ostracization, stigmatization, social coercion, etc.



    Point #5 --> There is a subtext in all of this (see Ron Moore's podcast on episode 320) that 'once we don't like you, that's it' you get whatever rights we feel like giving you at the moment. Bush as Baltar vis-a-vis a lot of collective guilt over Iraq is not bringing the sane side out of many. Denouncement and getting deleted politically or for real was, sorry, a big feature of those, sorry again, Leftist regimes that butchered 40,000,000. A socially acceptable free-for-all.



    Point #6 --> This is bad. The parallels are bad. This will go nowhere good.



    ...and then for the cartoons:





    [CENTER]















    [/CENTER]
  • addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,667member
    You're ignoring my post, DMZ. Why?



    Again, finding extreme sentiments on something like Digg is no trick, for any ideology or subgroup you care to name.



    Do you really want me to go do the spade work and dredge up the internet comment world of kill the fags, drive the liberals into the sea, Hillary the cunt, its time to deal with the niggers once and for all, hang all the Democrats from the highest tree, if it takes a blood bath let's get it over with?



    Hell, I can find all that in the comments on You Tube. Once you start digging on blogs like Little Green Footballs, Powerline etc. it gets really ugly.



    So what? That teaches us that people will say amazingly vile things under cover of anonymity. Some people seem to get off on expressing "forbidden" sentiments, like calling Obama a nigger, when they feel they can get away with it. You know, like when CBS had to close the comments section on an article on Obama because the racial taunting got so intense.



    So a couple of questions: why do you feel compelled to go looking for examples of "liberal" nastiness by combing through Digg comments? Why does vitriol directed at public figures with highly controversial, divisive careers strike you as more "hate filled" or "more of a problem" than equal or greater vitriol directed at whole classes of people? And why are those remarks more telling when they come from anonymous internet posters than when they come from well established, high profile pundits?



    You get worried when somebody at Digg thinks Falwell can go to hell, or Bush is an asshole that deserved to be impeached.



    I get worried when Coulter, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck, Malkin, Hume, etc, etc, think that "liberals" are a disease and a cancer, that being against the war is treason and that being brown, gay, poor or simply not powerful makes you a contemptible loser in the big cage match we call "the economy".



    I have a couple of friends who have had there teeth kicked in for being gay, and that's in the terrible bacchanalia that is Northern California. And Jerry Falwell was one of the people that kept that action going.



    You know a lot of "Christians" that have been getting knocked around, do you, DMZ? Which one of those scary, hate-filled anonymous posters has been given a national forum within which to advocate for kicking the ass of a few comfortable, self-satisfied "Christians" just to send a message to the rest of them? When was the last time you turned on the television and saw a panel trying to out shout each other in amping up the rhetoric around how Christians and conservatives are putting "ordinary" Americans in danger by undermining the very fabric of our land? Anybody going to show up at a funeral for one of your friends with signs that say "God hates pompous fake Christian assholes?"



    You are, in short, totally full of shit with your sorrowful "no good can come of it". We already live in the country where we see what comes of the sort of bullying Jerry Falwell represented. Take the fucking log from your eye.
  • giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dmz View Post


    digg is a popular site



    digg users are among the stupidest people on earth. Really. It's basically a sandbox for spam and astroturfing (*cough*Ron Paul*cough*) and virtually all of the community is too oblivious to notice.
Sign In or Register to comment.