read this book ... the author is a prosecuting attorney that worked the manson murders - he's never lost a case ... he highlights all the criminal actions of bush and this administration ...
Quite a few of them.
And many of the rest float in some vague grey area between negligence and malfeasance. Of course, i'd say they are acts malfeasance disguised (dumbed down) as negligence ... which seems to be the MO of the entire administration.
Well.
Listen to a former representative ... right at the end of this clip.
THERE'S NO RUNNING AWAY.
sorry, impeachment is not even possible. Congress leadership knew about many of the stated issues for impeachment. Congress as a whole in some cases knew also. So though the Bush administration abused all the lopeholes, the constitution, and the fear of congressional representatives (it's seems more important to keep their job than do what's right), impeachment isn't an option.
I'd guess at least half of congress, if not more, are equally responsible for the abuses of government the last 7 years.
"Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)
A poster who is an admitted thief made a statement about being accountable for your actions. The equation was about accountability, not about comparing the two supposed crimes.
I truly believe that poor reading comprehension is behind a lot of liberal ideology. That and hypocrisy.
And are you not hypocritical by bringing up something when you yourself have probably broken a law?
haha - so, liberals can't read - another good one ...
what was the purpose of stealing the sign? ... to OWN the sign itself? ... no, it was an act to make the job of recruiting people for a senseless war harder ...
but in any case - you can't even remotely compare the two ... i say if you do - then you are only seeking to distract yourself from what is the crux of the issue ...
Hahaha...I'm not comparing it...I already said...when Abook and El Kabong committed theft, no one died!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(did i just come to the defense of know1 and back him up? :eek: )
lol, drifting already answered the question.
plus if you don't know that things like obstruction of justice and that the war/occupation of Iraq was illegal, then there's no reason to answer a question like that...
plus if you don't know that things like obstruction of justice and that the war/occupation of Iraq was illegal, then there's no reason to answer a question like that...
I don't know about the obstruction of justice bit ... but nothing Bush did vis a vis Iraq broke federal law. He went in with basically a blank check, signed by Congress.
All this impeachment talk is well and good ... but last I checked, you can't impeach someone just for being a douchebag.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
plus if you don't know that things like obstruction of justice and that the war/occupation of Iraq was illegal, then there's no reason to answer a question like that...
But again, most of the things on that list are not illegal - even for you and I to do them.
Or at the very least, very few of them are anything more than allegations.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I don't know about the obstruction of justice bit ... but nothing Bush did vis a vis Iraq broke federal law. He went in with basically a blank check, signed by Congress.
as far as the investigation into 9/11 goes... it is obstruction of justice... as far as investigations into tortured prisoners go... obstruction of justice...
No,
because each of those three scenarios is neither
constitutionaly defined treason, a felony, or a "high crime or misdeameanor".
Actually, cock-fighting may be,
so yeah.
I guess you are forgetting that they impeached Clinton over LYING about sex.
Remember that.
Lying about Sex = Impeachable offense.
Now go back and look at those 35 articles,
and get your head screwed on straight.
So in other words, anyone can make up a list of allegations and we'd have to impeach the president?
I could care less about Clinton or Bush. I don't support either. I thought the Clinton fiasco was almost as much of a juvenile farce as this call to impeach Bush is.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
So in other words, anyone can make up a list of allegations and we'd have to impeach the president?
I could care less about Clinton or Bush. I don't support either. I thought the Clinton fiasco was almost as much of a juvenile farce as this call to impeach Bush is.
I see.
So holding ANYone accountable is off the table?
And in other words, no ... if a member of the HOUSE introduces articles, and those articles are ACCEPTED by committee, THEN we should have an impeachment.
So far we are only half way there:
a member of the house has introduced the articles.
You and i both know that the house won't vote to impeach,
but thats how it goes.
what is juvenile is your faux-analysis.
The president is certainly guilty of at least some of those accusations.
Where you seem to be stuck is that, because many of the members of congress themselves were ACCOMPLICES to these acts,
you think they should ALL walk.
I think that is quite frankly absurd.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I could care less about Clinton or Bush. I don't support either. I thought the Clinton fiasco was almost as much of a juvenile farce as this call to impeach Bush is.
you're comparing getting a blowjob to ruining the US' economy knowingly, causing millions of deaths by illegal wars, and scrutinizing investigations??
So in other words, anyone can make up a list of allegations and we'd have to impeach the president?
The Iraq invasion part is factual enough to start a procedure to prove the other allegations. Come on, a president is not an irresponsible position. If you do bad stuff you have to be held responsible, just to prevent Presidents from doing too much messy stuff for exemple.
When you're president you have tons of privileges, it seems only normal that you also have tons of responsibilities.
The Iraq invasion part is factual enough to start a procedure to prove the other allegations. Come on, a president is not an irresponsible position. If you do bad stuff you have to be held responsible, just to prevent Presidents from doing too much messy stuff for exemple.
When you're president you have tons of privileges, it seems only normal that you also have tons of responsibilities.
Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the invasion of Iraq approved by congress? Wouldn't that make them his accomplices, or at least negligent in the matter? I can’t see them trying to impeach him for something that they approved.
Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the invasion of Iraq approved by congress? Wouldn't that make them his accomplices, or at least negligent in the matter? I can’t see them trying to impeach him for something that they approved.
the primary basis for impeachment is that this president and his administration purposefully lied to congress and the american public in order to engage the country in a war with a sovereign country ...
if lying in order to go to war resulting in the loss of life of thousands upon thousands of innocent people as well as the long-term impacts to health, economy and environment are not worthy of impeachment hearings ... what the fuck is?
so this writer's opinion is that the Afghanistan War is "illegal" so that makes it illegal?
how about in your own words why the invasion was illegal? or maybe expand on "sovereign entity that we invaded illegally"
They planned, coordinated, and launched an attack on this country from their base of operations in Afghanistan, all while being protected and harbored by the government of Afghanistan.
If you kill 3,000 people and i hide you out at my house, i would expect to get my door kicked in...
Comments
read this book ... the author is a prosecuting attorney that worked the manson murders - he's never lost a case ... he highlights all the criminal actions of bush and this administration ...
No - a few of them may be illegal...but then again those are just alleged.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
sorry, impeachment is not even possible. Congress leadership knew about many of the stated issues for impeachment. Congress as a whole in some cases knew also. So though the Bush administration abused all the lopeholes, the constitution, and the fear of congressional representatives (it's seems more important to keep their job than do what's right), impeachment isn't an option.
I'd guess at least half of congress, if not more, are equally responsible for the abuses of government the last 7 years.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
And are you not hypocritical by bringing up something when you yourself have probably broken a law?
haha - so, liberals can't read - another good one ...
sad
Hahaha...I'm not comparing it...I already said...when Abook and El Kabong committed theft, no one died!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i see you didnt answer his question yet...
(did i just come to the defense of know1 and back him up? :eek:
plus if you don't know that things like obstruction of justice and that the war/occupation of Iraq was illegal, then there's no reason to answer a question like that...
It's OK, the nausea doesn't last too long
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
No - because I didn't state that people should be accountable
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I don't know about the obstruction of justice bit ... but nothing Bush did vis a vis Iraq broke federal law. He went in with basically a blank check, signed by Congress.
All this impeachment talk is well and good ... but last I checked, you can't impeach someone just for being a douchebag.
for the least they could possibly do
But again, most of the things on that list are not illegal - even for you and I to do them.
Or at the very least, very few of them are anything more than allegations.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
but what are you trying to do by posting that? ... are you not trying to hold abook accountable?
if you truly do not believe that Bush has done anything illegal, just say so and I'll quit wasting my time.
Mostly, I do not believe that list is much more than unproven allegations.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Thats the point of having impeachment hearings, Einstein.
You don't prove allegations to have an impeachment hearing.
You have an impeachment hearing to PROVE allegations.
:rolleyes:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
So if I came up with my own list of allegations such as:
1. Knowingly jaywalked across mainstreet of a small town in Kansas.
2. Threw Big Mac wrapper out window of vehicle on Interstate 12
3. Owned and participated in illegal cock-fighting operation
etc.
We should have impeachment hearings so we can prove or disprove them?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
No,
because each of those three scenarios is neither
constitutionaly defined treason, a felony, or a "high crime or misdeameanor".
Actually, cock-fighting may be,
so yeah.
I guess you are forgetting that they impeached Clinton over LYING about sex.
Remember that.
Lying about Sex = Impeachable offense.
Now go back and look at those 35 articles,
and get your head screwed on straight.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
So in other words, anyone can make up a list of allegations and we'd have to impeach the president?
I could care less about Clinton or Bush. I don't support either. I thought the Clinton fiasco was almost as much of a juvenile farce as this call to impeach Bush is.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I see.
So holding ANYone accountable is off the table?
And in other words, no ... if a member of the HOUSE introduces articles, and those articles are ACCEPTED by committee, THEN we should have an impeachment.
So far we are only half way there:
a member of the house has introduced the articles.
You and i both know that the house won't vote to impeach,
but thats how it goes.
what is juvenile is your faux-analysis.
The president is certainly guilty of at least some of those accusations.
Where you seem to be stuck is that, because many of the members of congress themselves were ACCOMPLICES to these acts,
you think they should ALL walk.
I think that is quite frankly absurd.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
fuck.
no, he's comparing lying under oath.
~D.K.S.
just correcting what you wrote, that's all. don't try to drag me into something more.
~D.K.S.
When you're president you have tons of privileges, it seems only normal that you also have tons of responsibilities.
oh really... do tell... how was that illegal?
Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the invasion of Iraq approved by congress? Wouldn't that make them his accomplices, or at least negligent in the matter? I can’t see them trying to impeach him for something that they approved.
the primary basis for impeachment is that this president and his administration purposefully lied to congress and the american public in order to engage the country in a war with a sovereign country ...
if lying in order to go to war resulting in the loss of life of thousands upon thousands of innocent people as well as the long-term impacts to health, economy and environment are not worthy of impeachment hearings ... what the fuck is?
so this writer's opinion is that the Afghanistan War is "illegal" so that makes it illegal?
how about in your own words why the invasion was illegal? or maybe expand on "sovereign entity that we invaded illegally"
They planned, coordinated, and launched an attack on this country from their base of operations in Afghanistan, all while being protected and harbored by the government of Afghanistan.
If you kill 3,000 people and i hide you out at my house, i would expect to get my door kicked in...