"The Answer Is Impeachment" ... "There's No Running Away From That."

1356

Comments

  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    _outlaw wrote:
    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...

    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.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    know1 wrote:
    No - because I didn't state that people should be accountable ;)

    but what are you trying to do by posting that? ... are you not trying to hold abook accountable?
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    slightofjeff wrote:
    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...
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    know1 wrote:
    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.
    obstruction of justice and the war/occupation of Iraq are illegal. the bombing of Afghanistan is also illegal.

    if you truly do not believe that Bush has done anything illegal, just say so and I'll quit wasting my time.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    _outlaw wrote:
    obstruction of justice and the war/occupation of Iraq are illegal. the bombing of Afghanistan is also illegal.

    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.
    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.
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    know1 wrote:
    Mostly, I do not believe that list is much more than unproven allegations.

    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 was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    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:

    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?
    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.
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    know1 wrote:
    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?

    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 was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    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.
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    know1 wrote:
    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?
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    know1 wrote:
    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??

    fuck.
  • BetterThanYou
    BetterThanYou Posts: 853
    _outlaw wrote:
    you're comparing getting a blowjob to ruining the US' economy knowingly, causing millions of deaths by illegal wars, and scrutinizing investigations??

    fuck.

    no, he's comparing lying under oath.
    "Have you ever.........pooped a balloon?"
    ~D.K.S.
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    BetterThanYou wrote:
    no, he's comparing lying under oath.
    to ruining the US' economy knowingly, causing millions of deaths by illegal wars, and scrutinizing investigations??
  • BetterThanYou
    BetterThanYou Posts: 853
    _outlaw wrote:
    to ruining the US' economy knowingly, causing millions of deaths by illegal wars, and scrutinizing investigations??

    just correcting what you wrote, that's all. don't try to drag me into something more.
    "Have you ever.........pooped a balloon?"
    ~D.K.S.
  • Kann
    Kann Posts: 1,146
    know1 wrote:
    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.
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    _outlaw wrote:
    the bombing of Afghanistan is also illegal.


    oh really... do tell... how was that illegal?
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    my2hands wrote:
    oh really... do tell... how was that illegal?
    they're a sovereign entity that we illegally invaded. here's an old article that goes on about it:http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue46/articles/legality_civilian_toll.htm
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    Kann wrote:
    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.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    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?
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    _outlaw wrote:
    they're a sovereign entity that we illegally invaded. here's an old article that goes on about it:http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue46/articles/legality_civilian_toll.htm


    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...

Categories