39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:42:55 -0700, Ric Seyler wrote
(in article ):



George Graves wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:54:33 -0700, Ric Seyler wrote
(in article ):



George Graves wrote:



On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:24:37 -0700, Ric Seyler wrote
(in article ):





George Graves wrote:





On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 14:41:13 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):







On 2007-07-09 16:47:13 -0400, George Graves
said:







On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 12:15:28 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):







On 2007-07-09 14:10:43 -0400, George Graves
said:







Given most of this thread's respondents grasp of US law (as
witnessed
by
their inability to understand simple perjury laws) is woefully
inadequate,
I'd say very few.






We're not all the kind of Pharisee you are.







No, you're not. You don't know the law, and you don't seem to want to
learn
it and you don't seem understand the importance of being compelled to
tell
the truth in a court of law. Whether it's stubbornness that makes you
this
way, or willful ignorance, or just stupidity is not for me to comment
upon,
and I won't.






I've been a lawyer for 42 years. I just have a different political
view
than you do.







A lawyer, huh? Then maybe you can tell me what either your or my
POLITICS
have to do with the law? And by the way, sir, remind me not to choose
your
firm If I ever need legal council.







I'd say George that is spot on relevant since we are discussing a
POLITICAL sentence communion.
Purely political to prevent Scooter from rolling over on the Bush Admin
once he gets a taste of prison.
Scooter ain't no Ollie North. Ollie was a hard core mercenary, Scoot
AIN'T.
He would crumble like a cookie as soon as he met Bubba in the shower.




I still don't see what his political beliefs or my political beliefs have
to
do with the law. The President's commutation of Libby's sentence, or any
hard
pardon that might, eventually, come from this case, has nothing to do
with
the courts and the law. The courts will either convict of exonerate him
and
they will sentence him. What the President does AFTER that is a totally
different and wholly disconnected act over which the court has no say.




But like the Bush Admin has shown over and over, there is a underhanded
side to it.
Don't you agree if you are commuting a sentence, it should be a case
that has NOTHING
to do with the person doing the commuting?? That is pretty straight
forward. You gotta agree with that.
This was done solely to keep Scooter from rolling over on the guy
(Bush/Cheney) that commuted the sentence!!
That is just wrong, no matter how you cut it.



I agree, but then I have never indicated that I didn't agree.


And like with the Federal Attorney scandal. True, they serve at the
pleasure of the President.
But it's underhanded to fire attorneys that are/going to investigate
you. (that is the accusation)
Solely to prevent an investigation. That also is wrong, no matter how
you cut it.



Yep. And believe me, the presidential privilege was not instituted for the
reason it is being used. But Bush isn't the first sitting president to
abuse
it. Look into Clinton's pardons (and Reagan's).


Clinton didn't pardon/commute anyone who was going after him, did he?
There is a difference. But do I remember at least one of Clinton's was a
flat out crook, right?
And should of never got pardoned.



My comment was nonspecific. Both Clinton a Reagan pardoened people for
political/personal reasons who shouldn't have been pardoned.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 02:33:07 -0700, Sam Spade wrote
(in article ):

George Graves wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:51:15 -0700, Jason McNorton wrote
(in article ):


In article , gmgraves2
@comcast.net says...

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:02:03 -0700, Jason McNorton wrote
(in article ):


In article , gmgraves2
@comcast.net says...

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:32:02 -0700, Jason McNorton wrote
(in article ):


In article ,
gmgraves2
@comcast.net says...

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:24:27 -0700, Ric Seyler wrote
(in article ):



George Graves wrote:


On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:06:28 -0700, Ric Seyler wrote
(in article ):




George Graves wrote:




On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 12:53:04 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):






On 2007-07-08 13:53:32 -0400, George Graves

said:






On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 06:49:25 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):






On 2007-07-07 22:34:26 -0400, George Graves

said:






OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these
have
to
be
legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.





Anyone who consider's Clinton's impeachment to have been based
on
"legitimate charges" is living out in the never-never land of
the
far
right.






Anyone who condones perjury in a court of law, by anyone, high
or
low,
has
no
right to live under a Democratic Republic. That means you,
buddy.





Is that a threat, or just the empty bluster it looks like?





I'm no Republican, but had I been the Judge, Clinton would
have done time.




Just curious, what about Scooter?



Scooter GOT time, but Bush pardoned him.



LOLOLOL Oh man...... what happened to .......

It undermines our entire court system if ONE perjurer is
allowed to get away with lying under oath, much less the sitting
President
of

the United States.

"Do as we say, not as we do", NeoCON/Jesuslander mentality,
hummm.....
possibly?



Did I say that I AGREED with Bush's action? I did not. I was merely
pointing
out that it has nothing per se to do with the US system of
jurisprudence,
but
its rather a presidential privilege just as a governor has the
privilege
of
granting stays of execution and commuting death sentences to life in
prison.
You guys should start reading for content instead of looking for
NeoCons
under every bed...

We're just too weak as a country to survive I think. Go algore! Go
whatever, just leave me alone and don't mind the jihadists on their
way
in.

Go Jason!

P

Since around 1996 until now, I add my comments

I'll try not to be too political, but I do like Fred, I do like the PS3,
I like Blu-Ray and HDTV (long live HD), and I will say that Macs now
have their place even though I just bought a really nice Asus Vista
laptop.

However.. I can't take all the brainless Bush bashing or the '"gotta
destroy humanity to save it"' global warming hoax.

And yes I'll *lean* libertarian these days when it comes down to it,
which used to upset me. And yes George, you are walking into the dark
side with the Bush bashing. There is an agenda to silence anyone that
might be pro-war. Gotta watch out for that, as a fellow non-liberal
around here.


Unfortunately, Jason, Bush is an extra-easy target. He IS the worst
president
in US history (thereby knocking Jimmy Carter out of the cellar) and I'm
ultra
sorry that it turned out to be someone running on the Republican ticket
who
gets the "honor''. I believe that real Conservatives need to distance
themselves from this administration and try to convince people that not
all
Conservatives are Republicans and not all Republicans are Bush
Republicans.
If we can't do that, then we run the risk of becoming a one-party system
where only Democrats can get elected to anything. The result will be the
end
of the United States as a Republic.

I can't agree on any of that. Even if somehow the current president is
the 'worst in history' I don't see how that'll destroy entirely either
of the parties in the long term. Right now sure, Bush may be very, very
unpopular. Why? About a million reasons. Mostly he's out of the
spotlight now, and will be that way until late 08.


What this means in the short term is that no matter WHO the Republicans run
in '08, he/she/it will lose and no mater who the Democrats run in '08 will
win. Right now it looks like the Clinton Bitch will be our next president,
but it wouldn't matter if Obama ran, he'd win, or any othe Democrat up to
and
including the drunken little murderer, Teddy Kennedy. In the long term, it
looks like because of Bush's association with the Republican party,
Republican gubernatorial candidates, state legislature candidates, House or
Representatives candidates and senatorial candidates running on the
Republican ticket, will, for at least the foreseeable future, have an
uphill
battle to win anything. I don't see how our system can work under those
circumstances.

The Republicans did it to themselves by ever letting The Devil's
Advocate Cheney anywhere near power.

Hillary is going to overcome dislike for her in some Democrat quarters
by having the junior senator from Illnois as her running mate.

Sign me a former Republican, not Independent, who voted for Kerry
because I could not stomach the Cheney/Bush (yes, that is the correct
order) "team."

I didn't vote for Bush & Co. in either election. I also didn't, in fact
COULDN'T vote for a Democrat. While the Republicans don't represent me, the
Democrats are downright anathema to everything that I believe to be right and
proper for the Republic and for government in general.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:09:11 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-07-10 20:51:15 -0400, Jason McNorton said:

Right now sure, Bush may be very, very
unpopular. Why? About a million reasons. Mostly he's out of the
spotlight now, and will be that way until late 08.

Name just one thing the present administration has done right or competently.


Try done at all! Since re-election, Bush has done NOTHING except defend his
actions in Iraq. He hasn't initiated ONE piece of legislation, either foreign
or domestic. Just because the guy is "Commander-in-Chief" of the armed forces
doesn't abrogate his responsibilities as President of the United States, but
in that role, he's done nothing for more than two years and not a hell of a
lot before that!

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:00:55 -0700, George Graves
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:09:11 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-07-10 20:51:15 -0400, Jason McNorton said:

Right now sure, Bush may be very, very
unpopular. Why? About a million reasons. Mostly he's out of the
spotlight now, and will be that way until late 08.

Name just one thing the present administration has done right or competently.


Try done at all! Since re-election, Bush has done NOTHING except defend his
actions in Iraq. He hasn't initiated ONE piece of legislation, either foreign
or domestic. Just because the guy is "Commander-in-Chief" of the armed forces
doesn't abrogate his responsibilities as President of the United States, but
in that role, he's done nothing for more than two years and not a hell of a
lot before that!

The president doesn't "initiate" legislation, and there's nowhere
in the US Constitution that even implies that he should.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On 2007-07-11 14:00:55 -0400, George Graves said:

Try done at all! Since re-election, Bush has done NOTHING except defend his
actions in Iraq.

Oh, that's not quite right. Just after his reelection, he announced
that he had a mandate and was going to take full advantage of it. And
he has! He's done everything his mandate permitted. ;-)

Most of it, he's done very badly indeed.

Clinton didn't pardon/commute anyone who was going after him, did he?
There is a difference. But do I remember at least one of Clinton's was a
flat out crook, right?
And should of never got pardoned.





My comment was nonspecific. Both Clinton a Reagan pardoened people for
political/personal reasons who shouldn't have been pardoned.


After re-reading my post it look like I was making a statement, when I
was actually asking a question.
I don't know if he pardoned anyone that could roll over on him, but I
haven't heard to opposition yelling
that. I'm sure they would be if so. shrugs shoulders

--
Ric Seyler
Online Racing: RicSeyler
GPL Handicap 6.35

http://www.pcola.gulf.net/~ricseyler
remove -SPAM- from email address
--------------------------------------
"Homer no function beer well without."
- H.J. Simpson

On 2007-07-11 14:16:21 -0400, Hatunen said:

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:00:55 -0700, George Graves
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:09:11 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-07-10 20:51:15 -0400, Jason McNorton said:

Right now sure, Bush may be very, very
unpopular. Why? About a million reasons. Mostly he's out of the
spotlight now, and will be that way until late 08.

Name just one thing the present administration has done right or competently.


Try done at all! Since re-election, Bush has done NOTHING except defend his
actions in Iraq. He hasn't initiated ONE piece of legislation, either foreign
or domestic. Just because the guy is "Commander-in-Chief" of the armed forces
doesn't abrogate his responsibilities as President of the United States, but
in that role, he's done nothing for more than two years and not a hell of a
lot before that!

The president doesn't "initiate" legislation, and there's nowhere
in the US Constitution that even implies that he should.

So how about answering my original statement, Hatunen: name just one
thing the present administration has done right or competently.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:00:35 -0400, sechumlib
wrote:

On 2007-07-11 14:16:21 -0400, Hatunen said:

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:00:55 -0700, George Graves
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:09:11 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-07-10 20:51:15 -0400, Jason McNorton said:

Right now sure, Bush may be very, very
unpopular. Why? About a million reasons. Mostly he's out of the
spotlight now, and will be that way until late 08.

Name just one thing the present administration has done right or competently.


Try done at all! Since re-election, Bush has done NOTHING except defend his
actions in Iraq. He hasn't initiated ONE piece of legislation, either foreign
or domestic. Just because the guy is "Commander-in-Chief" of the armed forces
doesn't abrogate his responsibilities as President of the United States, but
in that role, he's done nothing for more than two years and not a hell of a
lot before that!

The president doesn't "initiate" legislation, and there's nowhere
in the US Constitution that even implies that he should.

So how about answering my original statement, Hatunen: name just one
thing the present administration has done right or competently.

It's your question; you answer it.

Oh. I think you already have, by merely asking it.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On 2007-07-11 18:46:56 -0400, Hatunen said:

It's your question; you answer it.

Hmmm. When you ask a question, do you want it answered by yourself?

I'm trying to figure out what cabal of idiots elected that dodo to two
terms as president, and what they got out of it. I still don't know.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:25:42 -0400, sechumlib
wrote:

On 2007-07-11 18:46:56 -0400, Hatunen said:

It's your question; you answer it.

Hmmm. When you ask a question, do you want it answered by yourself?

I'm trying to figure out what cabal of idiots elected that dodo to two
terms as president, and what they got out of it. I still don't know.

Wasn't me.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *