Bush/Cheney Impeachment

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

What rights are being compromised, Id like to know? California does more to protect the rights of the public than any other place Ive ever lived in.

Boy that's easy. I'll start it off with the 2nd Amendment. Severly compromised in Kalifornia

Spelliing it with a K is a sign that you're really have no argument.

The guns laws are a great nuisance, but severely compromised is quite inaccurate. 5-7 years back I bought several guns in anticipation of change that so far has not arrived. See NY for that sort of thing.

Going beyond the gun laws, what other rights do you believe are being curtailed in California?

[matthewcline 0]

Fine, your an "individualist".
I still feel I benefited from your service, if your not there, who would have been there in your place?

Again, I made no claim of your toughness, it appears you just projected your anger over the MSM's claim at me.

I did not bash California. I meant that specifically actions in Iraq have no personal bearing on You but any in California do.

I moved to California when I was 7 (in 1975) and lived there (on the SF Peninsula) till I was 18 (1986). I am still a resident and get home to see the folks 1 to 2 times a year. I still vote in California. I may have as much right over an opinion of the state as any other non-native Californian who moved there.

The Flag, now that is interesting since the word "Socialism" is being used in the California and National Media about a current item of legislation being presented by the Governor and State Senate. I looked it up after your comment to see why you posted it. But it is partly my fault, I voted for him too (The Governor that is).

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Clinton is legally innocent of the charges brought against him. Period. Them's the facts. And for some reason, republicans cannot stand them.

You keep just ignoring that he pleaded out one day before he left office.

"In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.[10]

Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false . . . ." [11]

In January 2001, on the day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was also automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he chose to resign. [12]"

[SkyDekker 1,465]

blah, blah, blah...

Can you actually point to a guilty verdict by a court? No, then according to your own laws he is not guilty.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

blah, blah, blah...

Can you actually point to a guilty verdict by a court? No, then according to your own laws he is not guilty.

No no no! Those rules only apply to HIS side.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Can you actually point to a guilty verdict by a court? No, then according to your own laws he is not guilty.

Well he DID admitt to it. And he did get fined and kicked out of the Bar. Can you prove any of your claims against Bush (like him admitting it)? Nope, didn't think so.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Clinton is legally innocent of the charges brought against him. Period. Them's the facts.

Cutting a deal is the same as being innocent?

No kidding.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Well he DID admitt to it. And he did get fined and kicked out of the Bar. Can you prove any of your claims against Bush (like him admitting it)? Nope, didn't think so.

Let's hypothesize that after Bush comes another Republican president. And after that another. And then another.

What are the chances 24 years from now that you'll still be hijacking every conversation about the new republican president with "Clinton this and Clinton that" distractions?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Let's hypothesize that after Bush comes another Republican president. And after that another. And then another.

OK, but we all can agree that it will not happen.

Quote

What are the chances 24 years from now that you'll still be hijacking every conversation about the new republican president with "Clinton this and Clinton that" distractions?

It would not even be an issue now except you and others ignore he admitted to it. But at the same time attack Bush for things you can't back up. What are the chances that you will only debate using facts?

[billvon 2,991]

>Well he DID admitt to it.

Let's reverse it.

Let's say Bush is impeached for deceiving Congress and the US public into supporting a war. He is found innocent and not removed from office. Later, just before he leaves office, he says "well, I probably did push a little too hard and say things that weren't 100% true, but the underlying cause was a good one."

Could democrats then say "BUSH IS GUILTY" for the next 10 years? Or would you take issue with that?

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Clinton is legally innocent of the charges brought against him. Period. Them's the facts.

Cutting a deal is the same as being innocent?

No kidding.

Cutting a deal is the same as being guilty? Lots of companies have cut deals on liability cases with no merit, just to avoid any further hassles. REPUBLICANS are frequently complaining about just that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Could democrats then say "BUSH IS GUILTY" for the next 10 years? Or would you take issue with that?

sure, and they would, especially if things aren't going very well and the distraction is useful or the comparison is pertinent. Or, even if they are just holding a grudge about him. (all three apply today on the other side of the house, and it did a flip last guy too. You know, that guy with the cigar?)

I wouldn't say the hardcores on either side are really any different from each other. Any argument, any spin, it doesn't really matter how. You gotta admire them for the creativity and persistence.

wait, "admire" isn't the word I'm looking for......

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,991]

>I wouldn't say the hardcores on either side are really any different from each other.

Quite true. Just don't point that out to them. They absolutely hate that. "I'm just an average (democrat/republican) and have nothing to do with those lying, corrupt, amoral (republicans/democrats) - and I'm insulted that you would compare me to them!"

Or better yet - "I'm an independent thinker, not beholden to any party. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the (left/right). It's sad how the (left/right) gets away with all this stuff that the more moral (right/left) is accused of."

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Clinton is legally innocent of the charges brought against him. Period. Them's the facts.

Cutting a deal is the same as being innocent?

No kidding.

Cutting a deal is the same as being guilty? Lots of companies have cut deals on liability cases with no merit, just to avoid any further hassles. REPUBLICANS are frequently complaining about just that.

So....

does that mean "Clinton is legally innocent of the charges brought against him"?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Let's reverse it.

Let's say Bush is impeached for deceiving Congress and the US public into supporting a war. He is found innocent and not removed from office. Later, just before he leaves office, he says "well, I probably did push a little too hard and say things that weren't 100% true, but the underlying cause was a good one."

Could democrats then say "BUSH IS GUILTY" for the next 10 years? Or would you take issue with that?

The Dems could say he was guilty. In fact *I* would as well. I would have no issue with anyone saying he was guilty in that situation.

I *DO* take issue with one group claiming one guy did nothing wrong even though he admitted it, while making all kinds of claims against a guy that has not been found guilty nor admitted to anything.

I also take issue with the line of thinking that even if it was wrong that since it was not *really* bad it just didn't even happen.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Clinton is legally innocent of the charges brought against him. Period. Them's the facts.

Cutting a deal is the same as being innocent?

No kidding.

Cutting a deal is the same as being guilty? Lots of companies have cut deals on liability cases with no merit, just to avoid any further hassles. REPUBLICANS are frequently complaining about just that.

So....

does that mean "Clinton is legally innocent of the charges brought against him"?

I agree with the jury's verdict.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I *DO* take issue with one group claiming one guy did nothing wrong even though he admitted it, while making all kinds of claims against a guy that has not been found guilty nor admitted to anything.

wiggle wiggle wiggle

He was not convicted in a court of law... do I believe he got a blow job... yup... he is a man of power and a lot of women dig that... do I believe he is a sexual being... sure why not... It seems the right has an issue with sex and morality.. they campained on it.. and di not do so good themselves... DUH....
Do I believe he believes what he said is true???
Yes.. growing up in the Bible Belt is the root cause.. because in his mind and many men in the south.. a blow job just is not SEX.
At least that is what a hell of a lot of you in the south certainly claim... are you saying most of the men I ever met from the south are liars???

But you guys are the ones who proclaim him GUILTY of lying.. yet he was not successfully removed from office in the impeachment proceedings..

[Gravitymaster 0]

Then why do the police arrest hookers when they solicit a police officer for oral sex?

Do you actually believe that Clinton is some hick from Arkansas who after going to college on a Rhodes Scholarship, studying law and passing the Bar exam, becoming Governor of Arkansas for several terms, becoming President of the U.S. for 2 terms, was actually so unsophisticated that he didn't know a BJ was sex?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Clinton is legally innocent of the charges brought against him. Period. Them's the facts.

Cutting a deal is the same as being innocent?

No kidding.

Cutting a deal is the same as being guilty? Lots of companies have cut deals on liability cases with no merit, just to avoid any further hassles. REPUBLICANS are frequently complaining about just that.

So....

does that mean "Clinton is legally innocent of the charges brought against him"?

I agree with the jury's verdict.

Jury verdict?

He cut a deal, paid a fine and surrendered his law license.

DURRRR

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Do you actually believe that Clinton is some hick from Arkansas who after going to college on a Rhodes Scholarship, studying law and passing the Bar exam, becoming Governor of Arkansas for several terms, becoming President of the U.S. for 2 terms, was actually so unsophisticated that he didn't know a BJ was sex?

You do realize that MOST peoples morality is set before the age of 10 years old by their family????

I would say he is a product of his upbringing.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

He was not convicted in a court of law

He was fined and disbarred.

Quote

But you guys are the ones who proclaim him GUILTY of lying.. yet he was not successfully removed from office in the impeachment proceedings..

He admitted to lying under oath. What would you call lying under oath?

As for not being removed. Hell, I don't think he should have been removed for getting a BJ. Maybe not even for lying under oath. But to claim he did not lie under oath AFTER HE ADMITTED TO IT, and after being fined and disbarred for lying under oath. Is rather silly.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

As for not being removed. Hell, I don't think he should have been removed for getting a BJ. Maybe not even for lying under oath

Welcome to the reality in the rest of the world...

Not the pie in the sky DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO RIGHT WING Republican Party.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

He cut a deal, paid a fine and surrendered his law license

if you'd stop using legal terms, you guys guys could actually come to some concession - he lied, it wasn't enough to get him canned, other stuff happened afterwards,

we are now living in a period where this is ancient history and it's a tedious way to point out the hypocrisy of some partisan types. And also tedious in the counterarguments against their brothers on in the mirro. Also a bit silly.

then we could return to the original thread topic about California's wacky doin's

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Welcome to the reality in the rest of the world...

I have been in reality. The people who are living outside of reality are those that do not think he lied under oath, or that it is not perjury. Or that since the crime was so small and over something so silly that it is not a crime. While at the same time as they willfully ignore this case, they turn the table and make accusations that have not been proven in other situations since they deem the "crime" large enough to punish without trial, confession, or even proof.

He admitted to lying under oath. Would you call lying under oath a crime? I would no matter what crime they are lying about and no matter what party they are from.

I do feel punishment should fit the crime, which is why I don't think Clinton should have been removed. Many in Congress felt the same way.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

It would not even be an issue now except you and others ignore he admitted to it

We ignore it because it's IRRELEVANT! This thread is about BUSH -- not Clinton.

You're obsessed, man. Concentrate. Try to get Clinton out of your mind. It was a decade ago!

Here's an exercise: Next time there's a thread about Bush, try -- TRY -- to discuss Bush. Try to let there be one conversation about Bush that you DON'T turn to Clinton.

I know it's hard. But you can do it. We all believe in you.

First Class Citizen Twice Over