39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.

Sam Spade wrote:

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.

Oh yea, Him, Rummy and Rove were the masterminds behind the Taliban
style America push and the Fear Mongering.
I feel Bush just kinda went along for the ride.
That Bin Laden tape that came out right before the election was the best
thing that could of happened to Bush.....
Put him over the top, by the time Rove got done with it.
Seems like it's ALWAYS.... The worst things that can happen to America
was the BEST thing that could happen for Bush.
sigh


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 HAD to also, didn't enjoy it though. Like on South Park, we had a
choice between a Turd on a Stick and a **** Sandwich. LOLOLOL

--
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

Sam Spade wrote:

George Graves wrote:




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.


The Republican Party no longer deserves to exist after it let Cheney
and his evil group place their idiot puppet into nomination. And, the
convention bought into it.

So, **** the Republican Party.

I got a gut feeling that Thompson might turn out to be another AssHat...
Man I hope not!!

I really really really don't want to vote for Hillary. She could never
get anything done, too many people
in power hate her. And she has gotten sooooooo frikkin fake.
And Rudy scares the HELL out of me. That would be the very last nail in
America's coffin.
That dude will say and do anything, no matter how stupid. He can
literally make you shake your head
like Curly from the Stooges with what comes out of his mouth.....

Where is that CrAzy AsS Ross Perot when you need him. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA j/k ;-)

--
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

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.

--
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

George Graves wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:39:50 -0700, Ric Seyler wrote
(in article ):



George Graves wrote:



On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:58:20 -0700, Ric Seyler wrote
(in article ):





George Graves wrote:





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...






HAHAHAHAHA!! If they had their way, they would be under all our beds!!
Keepin us "moral"............






Thankfully, their day in the sun is over. If the REAL Conservatives in the
Republican party were smart, they'd form a new party to distance themselves
from these people. We need a strong, national, third party anyway because
the
two parties that we now have have not represented an increasing number of
Americans' interests in decades.




Agreed!!! I have absolutely no problem with Genuine Conservatives or
Genuine Republicans.
And agree with more of their policies than Democratic Policies.
But for example, HannaBot, O'Riley & OxyRush are neither.



These people are media entertainers. Whether they believe what they say or
not is irrelevant, because they are on the air to make money and they will
say whatever drums-up enough controversy to gain viewers/listeners. The more
of a following they have, the more money they make. I don't know about today,
but I know someone who worked with Limbaugh when he was first starting out in
a Sacramento CA. radio station. This person insists that Limbaugh believed
NONE right-wing of the things he spouted. He just knew that taking the
liberal stand on things would not be controversial, and would not stir-up
listeners to call-in, so he decided to take the ultra-right-wing side of
things which was guaranteed to rile-up liberals and get them to call in and
scream and hollar. It worked. Given the nature of the business, I can
understand that.


Well put, George.

--
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

I liked this thread for a change of pace, but does everyone else got an itch
to answer a HDMI, 1080p or a letterbox/blackbar question? hehehehehehehehe

Sparrow wrote:

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




--
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

sharx35 wrote:

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."


Would you like some cheese with that whine?




If that is whinning, then so is most political, partisan dicourse.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:49:18 -0400, Dave Smith
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:


You are free to check out the US system. I was just pointing out that a lot
of people are screaming for impeachment under the misunderstanding that it
means the person is automatically booted out of office. They aren't.

They are if they are convicted, though.

Apparently you know that, which sets you above the masses :-)


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?

My point was in response to George Graves' comment that the people can vote
"no confidence" to a sitting administration. The people don't do it. The
opposition parties in Parliament do it.

How do the people vote "no confidence" in an administration in
the Westminster system other than throwing the administration's
party out at the next scheduled election?

There is a vote of confidence in Parliament. If the ruling party loses the
vote the leader approaches the Crown to dissolve Parliament and call a new
election.

Not exactly the same as "the people can vote "no confidence" to a
sitting administration", is it? Which was the point I was trying
to make.



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

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.

On 2007-07-11 05:49:05 -0400, "sharx35" said:

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

An uttlerly uninformed volunteer from Canada heard from.

Mostly he's out of the
spotlight now, and will be that way until late 08.



That's funny, I saw him yesterday in full flop sweat mode desperately
trying to defend the leaked surge report. Hummmmmm
My damn lyin eyes and ears. Arrrrgghhh!! shakes fist LOL

--
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