39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:47:50 -0400, Dave Smith
wrote:

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.

They are if they are convicted, though.

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?

Assuming the opposition party is in the minority in Parliament,
they cannot vote "no confidence" without the votes of the
majority party.


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

In article "bearman" writes:
I wish you guys would learn how to delete the extraneous stuff at the =
top of the messages. I have to do a couple of Page Downs just to get =
the the current message.

If you can't get rid of the crap at the top, maybe you could--dare I say =
it--top post (ugh).

Bearman

Of course, not posting in HTML would also be good.

Taking this thread out of inappropriate newsgroups would be even better.

Alan

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In article "bearman" writes:
I wish you guys would learn how to delete the extraneous stuff at the =
top of the messages. I have to do a couple of Page Downs just to get =
the the current message.

If you can't get rid of the crap at the top, maybe you could--dare I say =
it--top post (ugh).

Bearman

Of course, not posting in HTML would also be good.

Text is oh, so Paleolithic.


Taking this thread out of inappropriate newsgroups would be even better.

Alan

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.

I've had it up with you before, you need to fight within the Republican
party for what you believe and then support the nominees.

Except that I'm not a Republican, I'm a Conservative, and frankly, the
Libertarian party, though by no means a perfect fit, seems to represent my
political beliefs much more than the Republicans do.

For some reason you seem to like to stand outside of things (Well, you
like macs, so not surprising) but it's not good. Being a contrarian
conservative is no better than being a michael moore style liberal.

That hurts. There's very little I dislike more than I do Michael Moore. But
the Republicans haven't represented me or those like me in decades. I don't
see why I should support a party that does not have my interests as a citizen
at heart.

George Graves wrote:

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


In article , gmgraves2
says...

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


In article , gmgraves2
says...

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


In article , gmgraves2
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."

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...
George Graves wrote:

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


In article , gmgraves2
says...

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


In article ,
gmgraves2
says...

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


In article ,
gmgraves2
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."

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

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.

Assuming the opposition party is in the minority in Parliament,
they cannot vote "no confidence" without the votes of the
majority party.


The opposition is always a minority. If they were the majority they would
be the government. It is a multi party system. When a single party fails
to win more than half the seats it makes deals with other parties for their
support.

Jason McNorton wrote:

In article ,
says...


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



You go back to oxyrush.. hmm

First off, I've never EVER quoted Rush Limbaugh (I hope, google may come
up with a quote or 2 in the last 12 years, ugh).


OK, I'll buy that. I was going off your statement that I was a scripted
"Liberal" paraphrasing
And I was pointing out that the NeoCONS are completely on script 24/7.
No matter how silly
or ignorant. So I'm sorry I painted you with that broad brush. That
makes me no better than the Neos.

I don't care if you bash Rush, never listened much or got my ideas off
his. I actually went to school and learned economics, that's my main
reason for being a conservative.


There is nothing wrong with being Conservative, at all!! A real
Conservative would be good
for the country. But the Bush Admin are as far from being Conservative
as you can get.

Frankly, this doesn't mean much. Bigger problems, and they aren't
'socializing medicine' if you know what I mean.. More like 'wow that's
getting bright arrggghhh'


One of my biggest beefs right now is the Health Insurance Crisis.
My insurance premium is bleeding me dry, and I'm knock on wood, I
actually did LOL
healthy, and haven't spent a day in the hospital since I was a teenager
from a racing accident. So Insurance is a big ole beef of mine.

--
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 hear ya Bear, but half would bitch about snipping.
LOLOLOL

bearman wrote:


I wish you guys would learn how to delete the extraneous stuff at the
top of the messages. I have to do a couple of Page Downs just to get
the the current message.

If you can't get rid of the crap at the top, maybe you could--dare I
say it--top post (ugh).

Bearman



--
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

Jason McNorton wrote:

In article , gmgraves2
says...


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



In article , gmgraves2
says...


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



In article , gmgraves2
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.

I've had it up with you before, you need to fight within the Republican
party for what you believe and then support the nominees.

For some reason you seem to like to stand outside of things (Well, you
like macs, so not surprising) but it's not good. Being a contrarian
conservative is no better than being a michael moore style liberal.


George is actually a Thoughtful Republican, a rare animal now a days.
The actually thinks about things before blindly supporting something.
Again a rare animal. His peers will go after someone like him with as
much venom as they will a Michael Moore.....

And how is ANYONE silencing people that are "pro-war"
Every day all day and all evening you have the airwaves filled
to the brim with all the toadies carrying water and cheerleading
for Bush and his personal folly of a war. Ever heard ANY talk radio
on all day and every program on FNC after 7:00 pm on weekdays
and all afternoons on Saturday and Sunday???? PFFFFFFFFTTTTTTT

--
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