39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:17:27 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-07-14 17:45:42 -0400, Hatunen said:

You're willfully ignoring all attempts to tell you what "impeahc"
means.

Hatunen, don't you really think your efforts are hopeless? The stuff
you're responding to is by people who are determined to show that
Clinton was a blackguard,

Well he is, but that's neither here nor there.


and they accept the very political
impeachment by the House as authentic proof that he was guilty.

No, the impeachment is beside the point. The point is that he lied under
oath.


They
are going to find him guilty no matter what idiocy, or lack of it, is
involved in their reasoning. They are Clinton-haters, pure and simple.

No, I don't/didn't like Clinton. He cheapened the office of President by
doing such things as renting-out the Lincoln Bedroom in the White-house to
taise funds for the Democratic party, but then, he's shown poor judgement his
entire life. And he gave missile secrets to the Red Chinks (for which he
SHOULD have been impeached). But none of this alters the fact that he lied
under oath before a grand jury in the Paula Jones case.


The world is full of Clinton-haters and their ilk.

We have a multiple party system in this country. Part of partisan politics is
to never agree with or like any sitting administration from the opposing
party.


They aren't interested in truth, only in spin.

I don't think that's true. I hold the President to a higher standard than I
would an average citizen, and I wouldn't want an average citizen to get away
with perjury, as that undermines the legal system, so I certainly wouldn't
let the President do likewise. The problem with you Clinton lovers is that
he's your golden-haired boy and as such could and can do no wrong. The truth
is that he was neither golden-haired nor immune from considerable wrongdoing
which had him and his bitch of a wife careening from scandal to scandal his
entire 8 years in office.

I think it's time to start ignoring
them. If I believed in a deity, I would pray to him to help me do that.
May you be stronger than I am.


Yeah, I think we've flogged this deceased equine enough.

In article ,
"Matthew L. Martin" wrote:

Sparrow wrote:
Read all about it, he http://Muvy.org


One reason not to do this: Dick Cheney.

Matthew

Cheaney is pretty much getting Bush to do what he (Cheaney) wants
anyways.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:17:27 -0400, sechumlib
wrote:

On 2007-07-14 17:45:42 -0400, Hatunen said:

You're willfully ignoring all attempts to tell you what "impeahc"
means.

Hatunen, don't you really think your efforts are hopeless? The stuff
you're responding to is by people who are determined to show that
Clinton was a blackguard, and they accept the very political
impeachment by the House as authentic proof that he was guilty. They
are going to find him guilty no matter what idiocy, or lack of it, is
involved in their reasoning. They are Clinton-haters, pure and simple.

The world is full of Clinton-haters and their ilk. They aren't
interested in truth, only in spin. I think it's time to start ignoring
them. If I believed in a deity, I would pray to him to help me do that.
May you be stronger than I am.

I don't post with any hope changing the minds of people like
that; I do want other readers who may not understand impeachment
to get a clue as to what's really meant.

Someone told me at lunch today that they were watching Bill
Moyers and there were people on the show who represented a
serious attempt to impeach Bush. I asked how many Congressman
they had on their side? I was told "maybe one". I said, in that
case it is NOT a serious attempt to impeach Bush.

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

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:59:52 -0700, George Graves
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:17:27 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-07-14 17:45:42 -0400, Hatunen said:

You're willfully ignoring all attempts to tell you what "impeahc"
means.

Hatunen, don't you really think your efforts are hopeless? The stuff
you're responding to is by people who are determined to show that
Clinton was a blackguard,

Well he is, but that's neither here nor there.


and they accept the very political
impeachment by the House as authentic proof that he was guilty.

No, the impeachment is beside the point. The point is that he lied under
oath.

Yes, he did. In the Paula Jones case.

They
are going to find him guilty no matter what idiocy, or lack of it, is
involved in their reasoning. They are Clinton-haters, pure and simple.

No, I don't/didn't like Clinton. He cheapened the office of President by
doing such things as renting-out the Lincoln Bedroom in the White-house to
taise funds for the Democratic party, but then, he's shown poor judgement his
entire life.

You don't know much about past presidents do you? From back in
the days when the press protected the presidents from publicity
about their little peccadilloes.

And he gave missile secrets to the Red Chinks (for which he
SHOULD have been impeached). But none of this alters the fact that he lied
under oath before a grand jury in the Paula Jones case.

And he got disbarred for it and paid a $90,000 fine. But for
contempt of court, not for perjury.


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

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:08:16 -0700, poldy wrote:

In article ,
"Matthew L. Martin" wrote:

Sparrow wrote:
Read all about it, he http://Muvy.org


One reason not to do this: Dick Cheney.

Cheaney is pretty much getting Bush to do what he (Cheaney) wants
anyways.

Who is this Cheaney person and why is he doing this?

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

"sechumlib" wrote in message
...
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.


He won in 2000. He won in 2004. NEENER, NEENER.

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:17:27 -0400, sechumlib
wrote:

On 2007-07-14 17:45:42 -0400, Hatunen said:

You're willfully ignoring all attempts to tell you what "impeahc"
means.

Hatunen, don't you really think your efforts are hopeless? The stuff
you're responding to is by people who are determined to show that
Clinton was a blackguard, and they accept the very political
impeachment by the House as authentic proof that he was guilty. They
are going to find him guilty no matter what idiocy, or lack of it, is
involved in their reasoning. They are Clinton-haters, pure and simple.

The world is full of Clinton-haters and their ilk. They aren't
interested in truth, only in spin. I think it's time to start ignoring
them. If I believed in a deity, I would pray to him to help me do that.
May you be stronger than I am.

I don't post with any hope changing the minds of people like
that; I do want other readers who may not understand impeachment
to get a clue as to what's really meant.

Someone told me at lunch today that they were watching Bill
Moyers and there were people on the show who represented a
serious attempt to impeach Bush. I asked how many Congressman
they had on their side? I was told "maybe one". I said, in that
case it is NOT a serious attempt to impeach Bush.


You have no hope because you think it is perfectly acceptable for a
president to lie.
You think is is perfectly acceptable for a
president to be adulterous. You have no hope
because you fail to realize that anyone that would lie on the scale that
Clinton did, and do what he did *IN THE WHOTE HOUSE* has no morals at all.
None. Yet you continue to perceive him as some kind of Knight in Shining
Armor.

Go ahead, keep your fantasies. You'll need somewhere to go....

Honu

"sharx35" wrote in message
news:RyEmi.40622$Io4.4110@edtnps89...

"sechumlib" wrote in message
...
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.


He won in 2000. He won in 2004. NEENER, NEENER.




He was impeached. I will let you amke the childish noises....

Honu

On 2007-07-16 06:11:47 -0400, "Hertz Dount" said:

IN THE WHOTE HOUSE

Oh, there.

"sechumlib" wrote in message
...
On 2007-07-16 06:11:47 -0400, "Hertz Dount" said:

IN THE WHOTE HOUSE

Oh, there.


And your point is????

Honu