If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.
In article ,
"TheNewsGuy(Mike)" wrote: George Graves wrote: ... Sir, in this country, if YOU or I were to lie under oath, in court, YOU or I would go to jail. But YOU OR I would NEVER have been called before a grand jury and asked if we had a blow job. If you were involved in another legal case (like Clinton was) you very well may have been called. Why Clinton was in front of a grand jury was his own doing... once there, you tell the truth. -- "None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit "I do not KF people" - Snit "Not only do I lie about what others are claiming, I show evidence from the records".-Snit "You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:06:55 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ): On 2007-07-09 12:45:18 -0400, George Graves said: Lying under oath to grand jury is NOT a trivial matter. Not when applied to Clinton, according to your non-standards. What about when applied to Lewis Libby? I repeat, lying under oath is not a trivial matter. Perjury is punishable by a prison term. I don't care if its Bill Clinton, Lewis Libby, or G.W. Bush. If someone lies under oath on a witness stand, he or she should be subject to the full weight of the law - irrespective of the perjurer's position or extenuating circumstances. One either tells the truth while under oath or one takes the 5th, where appropriate. There is no third road to take. ANY first year law student can tell you that. Were that not the case, our system of jurisprudence would be worthless. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.
Sir, in this country, if YOU or I were to lie under oath, in court, YOU or I would go to jail. Why should the President of the United States be held to a lesser standard than a normal citizen? If anything, he should be held to a HIGHER standard, I.E. he should be setting the example for the conduct of the people, not using his position of power to scoff at the laws the rest of us are held to. There is no extenuation here, It's THAT cut-and-dry. If you can't see that, then all I can say is that I hope your point of view is a minority point of view, because if it is the majority opinion in this matter, then may the fates help us as a nation, and especially may the fates help our system of jurisprudence, because such a precedent undermines it to the point of uselessness. To quote you: "Sir, in this country, if YOU or I were to lie under oath, in court, YOU or I would go to jail." Does this not also apply to Lewis Libby? A jury found him guilty. By your reasoning, he should go to jail. Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence (prison part) does a disservice to us. If Bush thought the sentence was excessive, why not let Libby go to prison until Bush thinks he's served a proper, (not excessive) time? -- Bearman America: Land of the free because of the brave. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.
In article ,
George Graves wrote: On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 04:56:49 -0700, Matthew L. Martin wrote (in article ): George Graves wrote: On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 16:31:37 -0700, sechumlib wrote (in article ): On 2007-07-08 18:54:04 -0400, George Graves said: Please show me where, in any code of jurisprudence in the country where it gives a witness the right to lie under oath about anything? Please show me where, in any sensible political system, a politician will put the chief executive in a position where he might lie under oath about anything as trivial as a blow job? And use that as a reason to try to get rid of a chief executive who is doing a perfectly fine job? There is simply no way around this. Clinton LIED under oath. End of story. All side issues are irrelevant. You live in an interesting world of black and white. Were you GWB's roommate? The Republican Senate was smarter than you. And this has to do with the Republican Senate, how? Understand that the court indictment for perjury and the impeachment proceedings are entirely different things. No politician with scruples would have done such a thing. Which types the Republican Congress perfectly. That is the point. Clinton was impeached for what the founders would have considered a trivial matter. Lying under oath to grand jury is NOT a trivial matter. It never ceases to amaze me that you Clinton apologists cannot separate the crime (perjury before a grand jury) from what Clinton lied about (getting a BJ from Monica Lewinski). You seem to think that the triviality of the subject about which Clinton lied in some way makes the fact that he lied trivial. It doesn't. I think you're wasting your time here... there are going to be people that don't understand what this represents... but it is weird to me that many of them are Americans. -- "None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit "I do not KF people" - Snit "Not only do I lie about what others are claiming, I show evidence from the records".-Snit "You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:05:12 -0700, TheNewsGuy(Mike) wrote
(in article ): George Graves wrote: ... Sir, in this country, if YOU or I were to lie under oath, in court, YOU or I would go to jail. But YOU OR I would NEVER have been called before a grand jury and asked if we had a blow job. The whole situation was ABSURD to begin with and the vast majority of your country knew it!!!! And I suppose that you are unable to discern for yourself the irrelevancy of your above statement? The absurdity of the situation is NOT license for the court to excuse perjury. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.
George Graves wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 19:03:32 -0700, Sparrow wrote (in article om): Read all about it, he http://Muvy.org OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law. You can't impeach a president because you disagree with his policies. What we need in this country is a recall procedure where the people can vote "no confidence" to a sitting administration like they do in Great Britain. Then, the president doesn't need to be guilty of a crime, he just needs to not please the citizenry with his policies. It would be interesting to see what percentage of them know that impeachment itself does not get rid of the president but is just a step towards it. In the British parliamentary system the non confidence vote is done by the Parliament, not the people, and generally only happens when there is a minority government. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:37:39 -0400, Dave Smith
wrote: It would be interesting to see what percentage of them know that impeachment itself does not get rid of the president but is just a step towards it. What is the next step? Or do you just mean the vote of the Senate? In the British parliamentary system the non confidence vote is done by the Parliament, not the people, and generally only happens when there is a minority government. So what's your point there? -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:18:28 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote
(in article ): In article , George Graves wrote: On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 04:56:49 -0700, Matthew L. Martin wrote (in article ): George Graves wrote: On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 16:31:37 -0700, sechumlib wrote (in article ): On 2007-07-08 18:54:04 -0400, George Graves said: Please show me where, in any code of jurisprudence in the country where it gives a witness the right to lie under oath about anything? Please show me where, in any sensible political system, a politician will put the chief executive in a position where he might lie under oath about anything as trivial as a blow job? And use that as a reason to try to get rid of a chief executive who is doing a perfectly fine job? There is simply no way around this. Clinton LIED under oath. End of story. All side issues are irrelevant. You live in an interesting world of black and white. Were you GWB's roommate? The Republican Senate was smarter than you. And this has to do with the Republican Senate, how? Understand that the court indictment for perjury and the impeachment proceedings are entirely different things. No politician with scruples would have done such a thing. Which types the Republican Congress perfectly. That is the point. Clinton was impeached for what the founders would have considered a trivial matter. Lying under oath to grand jury is NOT a trivial matter. It never ceases to amaze me that you Clinton apologists cannot separate the crime (perjury before a grand jury) from what Clinton lied about (getting a BJ from Monica Lewinski). You seem to think that the triviality of the subject about which Clinton lied in some way makes the fact that he lied trivial. It doesn't. I think you're wasting your time here... there are going to be people that don't understand what this represents... but it is weird to me that many of them are Americans. Yeah. I don't get it either unless this is further evidence of the "dumbing-down" of America that has been going on in our schools since the late '60's. I just don't see how anyone could possibly be that dumb, that ill-informed and on top of it, that thick-headed as not to grasp the simple concept of law that this entails. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:18:22 -0700, bearman wrote
(in article ): Sir, in this country, if YOU or I were to lie under oath, in court, YOU or I would go to jail. Why should the President of the United States be held to a lesser standard than a normal citizen? If anything, he should be held to a HIGHER standard, I.E. he should be setting the example for the conduct of the people, not using his position of power to scoff at the laws the rest of us are held to. There is no extenuation here, It's THAT cut-and-dry. If you can't see that, then all I can say is that I hope your point of view is a minority point of view, because if it is the majority opinion in this matter, then may the fates help us as a nation, and especially may the fates help our system of jurisprudence, because such a precedent undermines it to the point of uselessness. To quote you: "Sir, in this country, if YOU or I were to lie under oath, in court, YOU or I would go to jail." Does this not also apply to Lewis Libby? A jury found him guilty. By your reasoning, he should go to jail. This applies to anyone who perjures himself and is caught. Of course sentencing is up to the Court, and with a lot of the soft-headed liberal judges we have nowadays..... Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence (prison part) does a disservice to us. Yes, it does, but its the president's privilege to do that. The important thing is that justice was served by the court (the man was found guilty and sentenced), and that's THEIR job. If Bush thought the sentence was excessive, why not let Libby go to prison until Bush thinks he's served a proper, (not excessive) time? You'll have to ask G.W, that one. I have no idea. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.
In article ,
George Graves wrote: On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:18:28 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote (in article ): In article , George Graves wrote: On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 04:56:49 -0700, Matthew L. Martin wrote (in article ): George Graves wrote: On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 16:31:37 -0700, sechumlib wrote (in article ): On 2007-07-08 18:54:04 -0400, George Graves said: Please show me where, in any code of jurisprudence in the country where it gives a witness the right to lie under oath about anything? Please show me where, in any sensible political system, a politician will put the chief executive in a position where he might lie under oath about anything as trivial as a blow job? And use that as a reason to try to get rid of a chief executive who is doing a perfectly fine job? There is simply no way around this. Clinton LIED under oath. End of story. All side issues are irrelevant. You live in an interesting world of black and white. Were you GWB's roommate? The Republican Senate was smarter than you. And this has to do with the Republican Senate, how? Understand that the court indictment for perjury and the impeachment proceedings are entirely different things. No politician with scruples would have done such a thing. Which types the Republican Congress perfectly. That is the point. Clinton was impeached for what the founders would have considered a trivial matter. Lying under oath to grand jury is NOT a trivial matter. It never ceases to amaze me that you Clinton apologists cannot separate the crime (perjury before a grand jury) from what Clinton lied about (getting a BJ from Monica Lewinski). You seem to think that the triviality of the subject about which Clinton lied in some way makes the fact that he lied trivial. It doesn't. I think you're wasting your time here... there are going to be people that don't understand what this represents... but it is weird to me that many of them are Americans. Yeah. I don't get it either unless this is further evidence of the "dumbing-down" of America that has been going on in our schools since the late '60's. I just don't see how anyone could possibly be that dumb, that ill-informed and on top of it, that thick-headed as not to grasp the simple concept of law that this entails. I saw a little vid-clip today that had a couple of people debating the potential of "dumbing-down" due to the internet. One would tend to think having access to much more information than ever before we'd find people being more informed... but one guy's argument was that people are too willing to believe much of what they read simply because it was in print on some webpage (or blog). He may be on to something... -- "None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit "I do not KF people" - Snit "Not only do I lie about what others are claiming, I show evidence from the records".-Snit "You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bush performance ratings by Americans polarized by income status | PJ O'Donovan[_1_] | Europe | 9 | March 22nd, 2007 10:24 AM |
BUSH KEEPS AMERICANS FROM TRAVELLING. | Victor Moralez | Europe | 10 | March 13th, 2007 11:12 PM |
Bush chaos: Americans should sue | Carole Allen | Europe | 2 | March 5th, 2005 09:08 AM |
HOW TO UNDERSTAND AMERICANS, AMERICA, AND GEORGE W. BUSH | anonymouse | Europe | 0 | November 5th, 2004 08:57 PM |
Haiti, RCL/CCL, Bush, Bush and Travel/Cruising. | Cruising Chrissy | Caribbean | 1 | February 24th, 2004 01:31 AM |