The CEOs of Enron, Adelphia, and countless other big businesses also didn't want to go to jail. Under your *FLAWED* logic, they wouldn't do anything illegal that would get them put in jail. They wouldn't abuse their position of power because 10 years down the road they wouldn't want jailtime.
Man, Fellows, switch brands of crack? The shit you are smoking today is STRONG.
Actually BR I was going to bring up those thugs for my point but none the less you did for me in your reply.
Bush is fully aware of these crooks and knows what happens to people like this.
He knows what happens unless you are a liberal and you think Bush knows nothing.
I think those who think Bush knows nothing know nothing themselves.
Actually BR I was going to bring up those thugs for my point but none the less you did for me in your reply.
Bush is fully aware of these crooks and knows what happens to people like this.
He knows what happens unless you are a liberal and you think Bush knows nothing.
I think those who think Bush knows nothing know nothing themselves.
Fellowship
Being aware of them does not mean he will not abuse his power. Someone that actually thinks would see that there are two or more possible outcomes. The two simplest would be that he either avoids abusing his power or he abuses his power more carefully so as not to get caught in similar fashion.
Being aware of them does not mean he will not abuse his power. Someone that actually thinks would see that there are two or more possible outcomes. The two simplest would be that he either avoids abusing his power or he abuses his power more carefully so as not to get caught in similar fashion.
Do you smell that?
I think it's what we call (((( Speculation ))))
Uhh lets wait for the meat before we drool shall we.
The people of Iraq have been left crumbs while Saddam had palace after palace built for him and his thugs.
Wake up to the fact Iraq will be a better country after this.
Fellowship
Following that logic, why not rescue Tibet from China ? I mean come on ... just because they don't have any oil?
It would seem that you follow the right as blindly as you follow god. You'll probably take a closer look at the left when the right finally drops the religious vote.
Following that logic, why not rescue Tibet from China ? I mean come on ... just because they don't have any oil?
It would seem that you follow the right as blindly as you follow god. You'll probably take a closer look at the left when the right finally drops the religious vote.
tootles
cool gut you really do not have me figured out very well.
Let me articulate. I follow nothing blindly number one. Secondly I don't care for any religion being in politics. While I am a Christian I can't help it if some Christian groups lobby for a louder voice in politics. I vote republican as I believe in less "us vs. them" rhetoric in regard to class envy politics. The democratic party of today has clearly chosen to vacate the principles of JFK. Today's democratic party does nothing to earn my vote. The democratic party of today is one that likes to pit corporate against the common man. The democratic party of today likes to talk about "tax cuts for the rich" while clearly more than the so-called rich receive cuts in taxes. That kind of rhetoric will never excite me to vote for a democrat in todays democratic party. I do not admire a party that seeks to find areas to place blame. The democratic party of today seems only a party of blame.
I will say while I believe in business because I believe and know business both large and small create jobs I do not have room for corporate fraud. I think it will be wise of President Bush to address issues of accounting and executive fraud as forcefully as the effort in Iraq. You see the welfare of corporate and individual prosperiety indeed national prosperiety will not be prosperous if curruption is left unchecked. Back to addres the blame issue I will say it is not the fault of President Bush that we have seen the fraud cases in the news over the last 2 years. It is the fault of those who commit fraud. It is however the job of the government to create a mechanism to impune these acts of fraud by these criminals. Those who would even think of such acts must know there is a greater price to pay.
The idea that corporate america is evil and bad is not something I believe any party can truly pin on their shirt and carry. We are by no means a perfect country nor is any other country but I do believe we can make some positive changes to adjust the current climate to one that is more accountable. This is not something that requires political division between parties. I view this goal as a mutual goal.
The democrats have good rhetoric. For example they might say things like "we need to do more" and other clever phrases. I as a conservative also believe "we need to do more" just not as the democratic party of today envisions.
No matter the party I believe we need campaign finance reform. I also believe the electoral college needs to go and the popular vote method needs to be in place. There is no reason to keep the electoral college with its winner takes all within the states during a national election. That is a failed and unjust system in my opinion. I am against the death penalty. I believe in the idea of school vouchers and thus more competition in schooling. I believe in the separation of Church and State. I believe we must make it a priority more so than currently to encourage youths to make it to college and to graduate from college. We have far too many dropouts in high school. If anything should be socialized in this country it should be strong public schools funded at the federal leval. I strongly disagree with local level funding for public schools. Private schools no problem as that is a choice made by parents. But local funding of public schools fails far far far too many students. One should not see in one side of town a well funded school with all the latest teaching aids "technology, textbooks, library, class size" while on the other side of town or other side of the country or on the Mexican boarder of Texas poor schools with few teaching aids "mentioned above" as well as having mold and crumbling furnature combined with un-qualified "in some cases" teaching staff trying to teach overcrowding rooms full of students. That will never sit well with my ideas of what schooling should be within the context of public schools. Public schools should be equal the entire country over. All students should have an equally "serious about learning" environment in which to practice learning and study. Too many minorities are left out of a viable education role as society has not taken a forceful stand on their behalf. I strongly support funding at the federal level thus socializing public schools. They must be equal for our future generation students. The sooner the better. Sadly I don't envision this ever happening and that is a concern I will always burden. If only people would make demands of the government for such a noble and proactive investment for our future. Let me give a word-picture analogy to articulate my view of this crystal clear. Take "given city USA" On one end of town are half million dollar homes and a new state of the art Elementary School built in 2002 filled with new computers and staffed with well qualified professionals to teach and encourage the students. On the other side of this same "given city USA" we have poorer households living in run down apartment buildings and mobile homes. In this particular section of "given city USA" the elementary school was built in 1955 and is not in good repair. There is mildew in the concrete corridors and the heating and air conditioning systems do a poor job of keeping a comfort zone conducive to learning. The textbooks are 5 years old and need replacing. The computers all 2 of them for every 30 students are 7 years old and not usefull for anything other than a heavy paper weight. The teaching staff in this environment has dificulty maintaining pride in their work and in some cases the staff is under-qualified. The classroom size is too crowded and students can't focus as well as a result.
That is not something that sits well with me. I advocate federal funding to socialize the quality of public schools. Be they in the same city or across the country. Our country must invest in this idea.
I hope you have a better feel for who I am and what I believe.
And about being left, basically anything against Bush, the war, tax cuts, the Republican party, or even Fox News (for God's sake!) is "too far left" for you to tolerate, so your credibility as a judge is highly questionable...
First, you love to assume facts not in evidence. And I quote:
Quote:
he Dems voted for the war because Bush told them Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program, entirely based on the validity an obviously faked document.
YOU DON'T KNOW why they voted for the resolution. You have no idea, in fact. Your love for distorting and twisting facts is almost laughable. Bush didn't say "Iraq has an active nuclear weapons program. Therefore, we must invade". He talked about the very real possibility that they do. That's VERY different. It is amazing how people like you will twist a statement to fit your needs.
And on your positions: Anyone who believes the President should be impeached is unreasonable. Period. There is no legal justification for this whatsoever. The President can only be impeached for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". He acted under his soveriegn authority as commander-in-chief. He acted with added authority of joint congresssional resolution. He notified congress before the attack as he was required to do. Even if he had lied to congress , which I maintain is patently absurd in and of itself, he couldn't be impeached. It's not a crime. He dotted the i's and crossed the T's.
Oh, and you asked about Clinton. Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath (perjury) and obstructed justice by doing so. Not quite the same thing.
He acted with congressional approval because of a lie. Period. No excuse.
This very large ASSUMPTION is yours alone.
Likewise Bush didn't just state that he had evidence. He did present it to members of Congress in closed door meetings. The administration maintained they could not divulge all of their information to the press or to the U.N. in the general council because again the sources would have been harmed in Iraq and then they couldn't have gotten anymore information.
So just to be clear it isn't that they voted with Bush just saying the words, they were presented the evidence in closed door meeting that would insure it didn't leak out to the press.
They voted from an informed stance based off the evidence we had. They knew what Bush knew and the majority voted to say they would do what he would do. But of course you don't WANT to blame or declare any Democrats with this weird rant of yours. You just want to damage Bush because this is just politics.
The one thing that I think was most amazing about the Clinton impeachment is the Republicans were consistant on it. They had several of their own members end up going down over adultery as well. The house speaker Bob Livingston even resigned and he hadn't lied under oath about committing adultery, he had just committed it.
But this isn't about the truth or lies with you. It is about spinning your anti-war stance into something damaging since you can't win on the facts, popular support, the way the war went, or anything else.
Because the other thread was (supposedly) closed because of personal flaming. I wouldn't accuse Groverat of closing a thread simply because he doesn't agree with the politics of it, would you?
Tell me, tonton, why is this one still open?
Hmmmmm
Quote:
This is a matter of opinion. A lot of people worldwide think Bush broke the law.
Well whether or not someone has broken the law usually isn't a matter of opinion. They either broke the law or they didn't.
Quote:
The Dems voted for the war because Bush told them Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program, entirely based on the validity an obviously faked document.
So this is the one time they just took him at face value and said "Whatever you say, George!"?
HJ Res 114 (The Bush-Gephardt Resolution) was adopted on October 9, 2002.
The same Democrats that had fun bombing the hell out of Iraq in the very recent past were suddenly inherently opposed to the idea?
SDW, you're making a factually incorrect statement. This issue was well reviewed by Gerald Ford (a moderate Republican):
"What, then, is an impeachable offense? The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office."
Gerald R. Ford, 15 April 1970
Congress could impeach Bush for being late to work if they wanted to, and the Senate can remove Bush from office if they deem that to be "sufficiently serious to require removal".
Sorry to burst your "they can't" bubble. They can. That's the facts.
Ford was expressing an opinion. It is an opinion I disagree with. The Constitution is the law of the land. THAT'S what Congress has to act within. Your argument is essentially that Congress can act outside the bounds of the Constitution, just because they feel like it. "After all, if they HAVE the votes.....". No, that's wrong my friend.
Congress can't impeach Bush for "being late to work' as you claim. They have to act within the Constitution. I know you wish that wasn't true, but it is.
Perhaps you should actually read the pertinent clause.
Article II, Section 4
Quote:
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
What was it you said...."that's the facts". Thought so.
I'm a Republican, but I've noticed some posters in here are ridiculously far right. I am not gonna take any sides for now because things appear to be evolving and unlike most in here I like to do research before spewing BS just for the sake of supporting my political party.
Quite recently,I believe that a California senator..(was it feinstein?)said that congress and the senate were "briefed" a couple days prior to the voting, with information that turned out to be "incorrect" to put it mildly, about Iraq's WOMD capabilities. Needless to say, she wasn't very pleased about it. At a time when the label of "anti-patriotic" is shamelessly overused, if you don't think those "intelligence" briefings influenced a lot of senators and congressmen(and women) to vote to allow the use of military force on Iraq, I have a brand new 5.0 gig liquid hydrogen cooled quad PPC 970 for sale for you for a grand.
I have discussed this matter with others before but could not find the specific thread.
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Umm...
Now... as far as the constitution goes, it's funny how you use it (incorrectly) when (you misinterpret that) it supports your view, but you deny that Bush attacking a sovereign nation, specifically against the law according to the UN charter (that has been signed and agreed to by the US) is clearly unconstitutional.
The UN Charter does not say specifically whether it is aginast international law to attack a sovereign state, no more that it specifically says whether slavery or genocide are aganist the law.
Yet these two are actually defined, prohibited, and punishable by law:
Comments
Originally posted by BR
The CEOs of Enron, Adelphia, and countless other big businesses also didn't want to go to jail. Under your *FLAWED* logic, they wouldn't do anything illegal that would get them put in jail. They wouldn't abuse their position of power because 10 years down the road they wouldn't want jailtime.
Man, Fellows, switch brands of crack? The shit you are smoking today is STRONG.
Actually BR I was going to bring up those thugs for my point but none the less you did for me in your reply.
Bush is fully aware of these crooks and knows what happens to people like this.
He knows what happens unless you are a liberal and you think Bush knows nothing.
I think those who think Bush knows nothing know nothing themselves.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Actually BR I was going to bring up those thugs for my point but none the less you did for me in your reply.
Bush is fully aware of these crooks and knows what happens to people like this.
He knows what happens unless you are a liberal and you think Bush knows nothing.
I think those who think Bush knows nothing know nothing themselves.
Fellowship
Being aware of them does not mean he will not abuse his power. Someone that actually thinks would see that there are two or more possible outcomes. The two simplest would be that he either avoids abusing his power or he abuses his power more carefully so as not to get caught in similar fashion.
Originally posted by BR
Being aware of them does not mean he will not abuse his power. Someone that actually thinks would see that there are two or more possible outcomes. The two simplest would be that he either avoids abusing his power or he abuses his power more carefully so as not to get caught in similar fashion.
Do you smell that?
I think it's what we call (((( Speculation ))))
Uhh lets wait for the meat before we drool shall we.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Do you smell that?
I think it's what we call (((( Speculation ))))
Uhh lets wait for the meat before we drool shal we.
Fellowship
Being suspicious of your leaders is patriotic.
Originally posted by BR
Being suspicious of your leaders is patriotic.
I am suspicious of you and I too am patriotic
Fellows
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
tonton you amaze me.
The people of Iraq have been left crumbs while Saddam had palace after palace built for him and his thugs.
Wake up to the fact Iraq will be a better country after this.
Fellowship
Following that logic, why not rescue Tibet from China ? I mean come on ... just because they don't have any oil?
It would seem that you follow the right as blindly as you follow god. You'll probably take a closer look at the left when the right finally drops the religious vote.
tootles
Originally posted by the cool gut
Following that logic, why not rescue Tibet from China ? I mean come on ... just because they don't have any oil?
It would seem that you follow the right as blindly as you follow god. You'll probably take a closer look at the left when the right finally drops the religious vote.
tootles
cool gut you really do not have me figured out very well.
Let me articulate. I follow nothing blindly number one. Secondly I don't care for any religion being in politics. While I am a Christian I can't help it if some Christian groups lobby for a louder voice in politics. I vote republican as I believe in less "us vs. them" rhetoric in regard to class envy politics. The democratic party of today has clearly chosen to vacate the principles of JFK. Today's democratic party does nothing to earn my vote. The democratic party of today is one that likes to pit corporate against the common man. The democratic party of today likes to talk about "tax cuts for the rich" while clearly more than the so-called rich receive cuts in taxes. That kind of rhetoric will never excite me to vote for a democrat in todays democratic party. I do not admire a party that seeks to find areas to place blame. The democratic party of today seems only a party of blame.
I will say while I believe in business because I believe and know business both large and small create jobs I do not have room for corporate fraud. I think it will be wise of President Bush to address issues of accounting and executive fraud as forcefully as the effort in Iraq. You see the welfare of corporate and individual prosperiety indeed national prosperiety will not be prosperous if curruption is left unchecked. Back to addres the blame issue I will say it is not the fault of President Bush that we have seen the fraud cases in the news over the last 2 years. It is the fault of those who commit fraud. It is however the job of the government to create a mechanism to impune these acts of fraud by these criminals. Those who would even think of such acts must know there is a greater price to pay.
The idea that corporate america is evil and bad is not something I believe any party can truly pin on their shirt and carry. We are by no means a perfect country nor is any other country but I do believe we can make some positive changes to adjust the current climate to one that is more accountable. This is not something that requires political division between parties. I view this goal as a mutual goal.
The democrats have good rhetoric. For example they might say things like "we need to do more" and other clever phrases. I as a conservative also believe "we need to do more" just not as the democratic party of today envisions.
No matter the party I believe we need campaign finance reform. I also believe the electoral college needs to go and the popular vote method needs to be in place. There is no reason to keep the electoral college with its winner takes all within the states during a national election. That is a failed and unjust system in my opinion. I am against the death penalty. I believe in the idea of school vouchers and thus more competition in schooling. I believe in the separation of Church and State. I believe we must make it a priority more so than currently to encourage youths to make it to college and to graduate from college. We have far too many dropouts in high school. If anything should be socialized in this country it should be strong public schools funded at the federal leval. I strongly disagree with local level funding for public schools. Private schools no problem as that is a choice made by parents. But local funding of public schools fails far far far too many students. One should not see in one side of town a well funded school with all the latest teaching aids "technology, textbooks, library, class size" while on the other side of town or other side of the country or on the Mexican boarder of Texas poor schools with few teaching aids "mentioned above" as well as having mold and crumbling furnature combined with un-qualified "in some cases" teaching staff trying to teach overcrowding rooms full of students. That will never sit well with my ideas of what schooling should be within the context of public schools. Public schools should be equal the entire country over. All students should have an equally "serious about learning" environment in which to practice learning and study. Too many minorities are left out of a viable education role as society has not taken a forceful stand on their behalf. I strongly support funding at the federal level thus socializing public schools. They must be equal for our future generation students. The sooner the better. Sadly I don't envision this ever happening and that is a concern I will always burden. If only people would make demands of the government for such a noble and proactive investment for our future. Let me give a word-picture analogy to articulate my view of this crystal clear. Take "given city USA" On one end of town are half million dollar homes and a new state of the art Elementary School built in 2002 filled with new computers and staffed with well qualified professionals to teach and encourage the students. On the other side of this same "given city USA" we have poorer households living in run down apartment buildings and mobile homes. In this particular section of "given city USA" the elementary school was built in 1955 and is not in good repair. There is mildew in the concrete corridors and the heating and air conditioning systems do a poor job of keeping a comfort zone conducive to learning. The textbooks are 5 years old and need replacing. The computers all 2 of them for every 30 students are 7 years old and not usefull for anything other than a heavy paper weight. The teaching staff in this environment has dificulty maintaining pride in their work and in some cases the staff is under-qualified. The classroom size is too crowded and students can't focus as well as a result.
That is not something that sits well with me. I advocate federal funding to socialize the quality of public schools. Be they in the same city or across the country. Our country must invest in this idea.
I hope you have a better feel for who I am and what I believe.
God Bless
Fellowship
Originally posted by tonton
TO CONGRESS? Do your homework, please!
Exactly why was Clinton impeached again?
And about being left, basically anything against Bush, the war, tax cuts, the Republican party, or even Fox News (for God's sake!) is "too far left" for you to tolerate, so your credibility as a judge is highly questionable...
First, you love to assume facts not in evidence. And I quote:
he Dems voted for the war because Bush told them Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program, entirely based on the validity an obviously faked document.
YOU DON'T KNOW why they voted for the resolution. You have no idea, in fact. Your love for distorting and twisting facts is almost laughable. Bush didn't say "Iraq has an active nuclear weapons program. Therefore, we must invade". He talked about the very real possibility that they do. That's VERY different. It is amazing how people like you will twist a statement to fit your needs.
And on your positions: Anyone who believes the President should be impeached is unreasonable. Period. There is no legal justification for this whatsoever. The President can only be impeached for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". He acted under his soveriegn authority as commander-in-chief. He acted with added authority of joint congresssional resolution. He notified congress before the attack as he was required to do. Even if he had lied to congress , which I maintain is patently absurd in and of itself, he couldn't be impeached. It's not a crime. He dotted the i's and crossed the T's.
Oh, and you asked about Clinton. Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath (perjury) and obstructed justice by doing so. Not quite the same thing.
Originally posted by tonton
He acted with congressional approval because of a lie. Period. No excuse.
This very large ASSUMPTION is yours alone.
Likewise Bush didn't just state that he had evidence. He did present it to members of Congress in closed door meetings. The administration maintained they could not divulge all of their information to the press or to the U.N. in the general council because again the sources would have been harmed in Iraq and then they couldn't have gotten anymore information.
So just to be clear it isn't that they voted with Bush just saying the words, they were presented the evidence in closed door meeting that would insure it didn't leak out to the press.
They voted from an informed stance based off the evidence we had. They knew what Bush knew and the majority voted to say they would do what he would do. But of course you don't WANT to blame or declare any Democrats with this weird rant of yours. You just want to damage Bush because this is just politics.
The one thing that I think was most amazing about the Clinton impeachment is the Republicans were consistant on it. They had several of their own members end up going down over adultery as well. The house speaker Bob Livingston even resigned and he hadn't lied under oath about committing adultery, he had just committed it.
But this isn't about the truth or lies with you. It is about spinning your anti-war stance into something damaging since you can't win on the facts, popular support, the way the war went, or anything else.
Nick
Because the other thread was (supposedly) closed because of personal flaming. I wouldn't accuse Groverat of closing a thread simply because he doesn't agree with the politics of it, would you?
Tell me, tonton, why is this one still open?
Hmmmmm
This is a matter of opinion. A lot of people worldwide think Bush broke the law.
Well whether or not someone has broken the law usually isn't a matter of opinion. They either broke the law or they didn't.
The Dems voted for the war because Bush told them Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program, entirely based on the validity an obviously faked document.
So this is the one time they just took him at face value and said "Whatever you say, George!"?
HJ Res 114 (The Bush-Gephardt Resolution) was adopted on October 9, 2002.
The same Democrats that had fun bombing the hell out of Iraq in the very recent past were suddenly inherently opposed to the idea?
"Desert Fox didn't happen. lalalalaalala"
SDW, you're making a factually incorrect statement. This issue was well reviewed by Gerald Ford (a moderate Republican):
"What, then, is an impeachable offense? The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office."
Gerald R. Ford, 15 April 1970
Congress could impeach Bush for being late to work if they wanted to, and the Senate can remove Bush from office if they deem that to be "sufficiently serious to require removal".
Sorry to burst your "they can't" bubble. They can. That's the facts.
Ford was expressing an opinion. It is an opinion I disagree with. The Constitution is the law of the land. THAT'S what Congress has to act within. Your argument is essentially that Congress can act outside the bounds of the Constitution, just because they feel like it. "After all, if they HAVE the votes.....". No, that's wrong my friend.
Congress can't impeach Bush for "being late to work' as you claim. They have to act within the Constitution. I know you wish that wasn't true, but it is.
Perhaps you should actually read the pertinent clause.
Article II, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
What was it you said...."that's the facts". Thought so.
Quite recently,I believe that a California senator..(was it feinstein?)said that congress and the senate were "briefed" a couple days prior to the voting, with information that turned out to be "incorrect" to put it mildly, about Iraq's WOMD capabilities. Needless to say, she wasn't very pleased about it. At a time when the label of "anti-patriotic" is shamelessly overused, if you don't think those "intelligence" briefings influenced a lot of senators and congressmen(and women) to vote to allow the use of military force on Iraq, I have a brand new 5.0 gig liquid hydrogen cooled quad PPC 970 for sale for you for a grand.
Originally posted by tonton
Umm...
Now... as far as the constitution goes, it's funny how you use it (incorrectly) when (you misinterpret that) it supports your view, but you deny that Bush attacking a sovereign nation, specifically against the law according to the UN charter (that has been signed and agreed to by the US) is clearly unconstitutional.
The UN Charter does not say specifically whether it is aginast international law to attack a sovereign state, no more that it specifically says whether slavery or genocide are aganist the law.
Yet these two are actually defined, prohibited, and punishable by law:
Genocide, is specifically against the law according to this convention
Slavery, is specifically against the law according to this convention