39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.

George Graves wrote:

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 20:03:44 -0700, James Davis wrote
(in article . com):

It would be unfair to the 30% of Americans who like Bush to impeach
him unless he has done something illegal.


As I said. I think he's a lousy president who has done ABSOLUTELY nothing in
his second term except to defend his flawed policy in Iraq. Not one piece of
legislation has he introduced! But until he actually breaks the law, he is,
AFAIK, unimpeachable.

Well, he has given insane amounts of money for phony contracts to the
people who financed him - but that's probably completly legal.
--
Lars T.

George Graves wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 20:03:44 -0700, James Davis wrote
(in article . com):

On Jul 7, 9:34 pm, George Graves wrote:
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.
Right now about 30% of Americans are very happy with President Bush,
who was elected by a 51% majority. While I personally believe he's a
moron, there is no rule that says it's undemocratic for a president to
only please 30% of the population. There could be some time in the
future where angering 70% of the population is the right thing to do.
If you had to please the majority of people, then we wouldn't even
elect presidents. We would just vote on issues and the majority vote
would decide what to do.

I understand that and its sorta my point.
It would be unfair to the 30% of Americans who like Bush to impeach
him unless he has done something illegal.


As I said. I think he's a lousy president who has done ABSOLUTELY nothing in
his second term except to defend his flawed policy in Iraq. Not one piece of
legislation has he introduced! But until he actually breaks the law, he is,
AFAIK, unimpeachable.


I guess that you haven't read Bill Odom's recent piece. He makes an
excellent case for impeachment of Bush.

Matthew

--
I'm a consultant. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

Ric Seyler wrote:


Sam Spade wrote:


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.




My comment was nonspecific. Both Clinton a Reagan pardoened people
for political/personal reasons who shouldn't have been pardoned.


This Scooter deal is so transparent. Cheney calls the shots on
everything, and especially on this one.


Shooting that old man in the face, then refusing to be interviewed by
the Sheriff for 24 hours was too.
Makers Mark and a firearm don't mix. Especially when you are prone to
shoot anything that moves anyway.
Then add to the mix that disgusting, sadistic cage hunt. Shooting
planted birds. Frikkin Creepy and Sick man.


I missed my own pun. Having said that, you are so right.

In article ,
sechumlib wrote:

On 2007-07-12 16:44:56 -0400, George Graves said:

Ok, ANYBODY but The Clinton Bitch or Obama!

The idea, I guess, is to trash anyone given a remote chance of winning.
Now it's Clinton and Obama, but just wait until someone like Edwards
starts moving ahead (if he does). Then it will become "ANYBODY but The
Clinton Bitch or Obama or Edwards!"

The Republicans and their hangers-on would like to see someone run on
the other side who has no chance of winning.

Because they absolutely could not handle another 8 years of peace and
prosperity, annually decreasing gas prices, higher paying jobs, cleaner
ounce-of-prevention environmental policies, better educational
opportunities, lower taxes for working people and healthier economy via
fiscal surpluses and higher taxes on the rich. Another 8 years of
Democratic presidential success like the first Clinton years would drive
them all absolutely off the deep end this time.

==DCA

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:55:16 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-07-12 16:44:56 -0400, George Graves said:

Ok, ANYBODY but The Clinton Bitch or Obama!

The idea, I guess, is to trash anyone given a remote chance of winning.
Now it's Clinton and Obama, but just wait until someone like Edwards
starts moving ahead (if he does). Then it will become "ANYBODY but The
Clinton Bitch or Obama or Edwards!"

Edwards would be better than The Clinton Bitch or Obama.

The Republicans and their hangers-on would like to see someone run on
the other side who has no chance of winning.

Maybe, but since I'm neither, I don't see what that has to do with me.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:02:22 -0700, DCA wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
sechumlib wrote:

On 2007-07-12 16:44:56 -0400, George Graves said:

Ok, ANYBODY but The Clinton Bitch or Obama!

The idea, I guess, is to trash anyone given a remote chance of winning.
Now it's Clinton and Obama, but just wait until someone like Edwards
starts moving ahead (if he does). Then it will become "ANYBODY but The
Clinton Bitch or Obama or Edwards!"

The Republicans and their hangers-on would like to see someone run on
the other side who has no chance of winning.

Because they absolutely could not handle another 8 years of peace and
prosperity, annually decreasing gas prices, higher paying jobs, cleaner
ounce-of-prevention environmental policies, better educational
opportunities, lower taxes for working people and healthier economy via
fiscal surpluses and higher taxes on the rich. Another 8 years of
Democratic presidential success like the first Clinton years would drive
them all absolutely off the deep end this time.

==DCA

Yeah, that was all Clinton's doing. Right, uh-huh, sure.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:22:14 -0700, Lars Träger wrote
(in article ) :

George Graves wrote:

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 20:03:44 -0700, James Davis wrote
(in article . com):

It would be unfair to the 30% of Americans who like Bush to impeach
him unless he has done something illegal.


As I said. I think he's a lousy president who has done ABSOLUTELY nothing in
his second term except to defend his flawed policy in Iraq. Not one piece of
legislation has he introduced! But until he actually breaks the law, he is,
AFAIK, unimpeachable.

Well, he has given insane amounts of money for phony contracts to the
people who financed him - but that's probably completly legal.


Depends on how he did it I guess. Believe me, this country has become so
ultra-polarized that if there were even a whiff of wrongdoing here, the Dems
would have special investigators and special prosecutors up the kazoo looking
into it, and maybe they have. Or, perhaps the idea of Cheney replacing Bush
were the latter impeached, so scares them , that they have decided to let
sleeping dogs lie.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:27:57 -0700, Matthew L. Martin wrote
(in article ):

George Graves wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 20:03:44 -0700, James Davis wrote
(in article . com):

On Jul 7, 9:34 pm, George Graves wrote:
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.
Right now about 30% of Americans are very happy with President Bush,
who was elected by a 51% majority. While I personally believe he's a
moron, there is no rule that says it's undemocratic for a president to
only please 30% of the population. There could be some time in the
future where angering 70% of the population is the right thing to do.
If you had to please the majority of people, then we wouldn't even
elect presidents. We would just vote on issues and the majority vote
would decide what to do.

I understand that and its sorta my point.
It would be unfair to the 30% of Americans who like Bush to impeach
him unless he has done something illegal.


As I said. I think he's a lousy president who has done ABSOLUTELY nothing
in
his second term except to defend his flawed policy in Iraq. Not one piece
of
legislation has he introduced! But until he actually breaks the law, he
is,
AFAIK, unimpeachable.


I guess that you haven't read Bill Odom's recent piece. He makes an
excellent case for impeachment of Bush.

Matthew



I guess I haven't and who the hell is Bill Odom and where can I read about
his piece.

On 2007-07-12 21:02:22 -0400, DCA said:

Because they absolutely could not handle another 8 years of peace and
prosperity, annually decreasing gas prices, higher paying jobs, cleaner
ounce-of-prevention environmental policies, better educational
opportunities, lower taxes for working people and healthier economy via
fiscal surpluses and higher taxes on the rich.

I haven't noticed all those things. What I have noticed is incompetence
in handling terrorism (Al-Qaeda is better equipped to attack us
presently than ever before), in handling natural disasters (remember
Katrina?), in convincing the public of the government's honesty, in
maintaining freedom as opposed to Big Brother-like surveillance, etc.,
etc.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:57:11 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-07-12 16:54:36 -0400, Hatunen said:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:50:09 -0700, George Graves
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:34:33 -0700, Hatunen wrote
(in article ):

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 08:18:20 -1000, "Hertz Dount"
wrote:


The House just has to say something is an impeachable offense. There are
no rules.

There is a rule. It's just a bit vague in places: "The President,
Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall
be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of,
treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Treason is very well defined in the Constitution itself; bribery
is pretty well defined legally. It's "high crimes" and
"misdeanors" that get a little vague, but it was an adoption from
English law.

The discussion at
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/012.pdf gives a
pretty up to date overview of the matter beginning on page 611,
whihc is PDF page 183 of 194.

Note particularly that indictable crimes need not be the basis
for impeachment.



But perjury is a "high-crime" as it's a felony.

I'm a bit hazy on what that has to do with "There are no rules".

It's very much like what Ogden Nash said in is verses to Saint-Saens'
"Carnival of the Animals":

"In the world of mules
There are no rules."


But I suspect that a world of Donkeys will work just as well even if it no
longer rhymes.

I like the classical music reference, BTW.