39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:38:59 -0700, George Graves
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:34:07 -0700, Hatunen wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:28:17 -0700, George Graves
wrote:

A counselor is anyone who gives council the is to say, expert advice. This
advice can be medical, psycological, marital (as in a marriage counselor),
legal (as in a lawyer):

Come, come. A counselor doesn't give council, a counselor gives
counsel. You own quoted defintion below makes the difference
clear.

You're gonna crucify me for a spelling mistake????!!!!

I would think that in this case the difference is a bit critical.

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

When you reply to any post in this thread would you please remove the
alt.tv.tech.hdtv group from the newsgroups it goes out to.

I've already removed it from this post. thank you.

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm

Hatunen wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:38:59 -0700, George Graves
wrote:


On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:34:07 -0700, Hatunen wrote
(in article ):


On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:28:17 -0700, George Graves
wrote:

A counselor is anyone who gives council the is to say, expert advice. This
advice can be medical, psycological, marital (as in a marriage counselor),
legal (as in a lawyer):

Come, come. A counselor doesn't give council, a counselor gives
counsel. You own quoted defintion below makes the difference
clear.

You're gonna crucify me for a spelling mistake????!!!!


I would think that in this case the difference is a bit critical.

Ah, finally, I am enlighened. Or is it inlightened? ;-)

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.

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.

--
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

Hatunen wrote:

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?

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.


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.



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

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.

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.

The NeoCONS had better open their eyes and realize, all the CrAzy things
they say and do
cut both ways.... Like the idiotic NeoCON statement, "How dare you
question our leaders
during wartime, ya traitor"... Well who is questioning the new leaders
in Congress..... The Oozing Hypocrite NeoCONS!!

And heaven forbid, Hillary gets elected (uggh), you don't think she will
take Bush/Cheney's que, and do the same
things. Just fire whoever investigates something she might do. Deny
cabinet member/employees to tesitfy
or give depositions. Let anyone out of jail that might roll over on her.
Cuz you know the NeoCONS are
gonna go after her, every minute, every day, every week, she might be in
office.
NeoCONS just have NO sence of foresight whatsoever.








--
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

In article ,
says...


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.

Wow! You're one of the 5 million internet guinesses that suddenly get
it and hate all politicians! Wow man! Can I get your autograph? You
really show us the light! You figured it all out? HOW?! Amazing.
Tell digg and DU and daily kos about this! This is the kind of leftwing
strong thinking we have all been looking for?

Oh, you bash Bush and Republicans? Oh..

Jason McNorton wrote:

In article ,
says...


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.



Wow! You're one of the 5 million internet guinesses that suddenly get
it and hate all politicians! Wow man! Can I get your autograph?

Sure thing Jason, 8x10 glossy OK?
Nude or non-nude :-)

You
really show us the light! You figured it all out? HOW?! Amazing.
Tell digg and DU and daily kos about this!

Ummm... unlike the NeoCON/JesusLanders, the rest of us aren't self
proclaimed and proud DITTOHEADS,
PFFFFFFTTTT, the rest of us don't need an assigned program to blindly
follow or handed a leaky pail to tote.
The most dangerous thing to this bunch of NeoCON/Jesuslanders is....
Americans have eyes and ears.
Last November sure showed that! Neo/JLs got kicked to the curb and
Genuine Republicans stayed in office.

This is the kind of leftwing
strong thinking we have all been looking for?


I wouldn't say anyone needs strong left wing thinking. FWIW

Oh, you bash Bush and Republicans? Oh..


And this weakling bunch of Dems........ haven't been following the
thread? Hummmm?
Or hasn't OxyRush and HannaBot given you permission to yet?
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

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).