What kind of twisted mindset puts blowjob in the same context as lying us into a war, outing a CIA agent, and a national debt that only Reagan could have been proud of. Hello reality check!
Here's the Reality.
We're a nation that depends on the Rule of Law to maintain our social contracts. ANY obstruction of that Rule of Law, ANY, is a criminal act. It doesn't matter if you are lying about playing doctor with a White House intern while involved in a civil suit in Arkansas, or if you are committing much more aggregious offenses in the name of enriching your buddies. High Crimes and Midemeanors are just that, and subject to impeachment just the same, BECAUSE they are high crimes and misdemeanors.
My support of impeachment in Clinton's case was strictly centered on the Rule of Law issue, not the ridiculous and insulting song about how someone's sex life has nothing to do with it. He was under oath, trying to escape the consequences of his actions as Governor of Arkansas in a civil suit, and he got caught. Period. End of story, and he took a kick because he swore an Oath to uphold the Constitution and Laws of the United States--not simply the ones that were convenient or not personally embarassing to him.
Bush and Cheney have done FAR worse. They need a swift kick from the Rule of law as well. There is NOTHING that compares what they have done to what Clinton did with Monica or his perjury. HOWEVER, the Rule of Law is what matters here, and if the Congress, and that cowardly Commie, Speaker Pelosi would do their jobs, and impeach the SOB's, we would be a LOT better off.
They all, every stinking one of them swore and OATH, and frankly NONE of them are upholding it. The last I checked, more than several of us have some very strong feelings about oaths that should have us ALL furious that our lawmakers and leaders think their Oath of office to be such quaint anachronisms. No patriot would sit by and so casually allow this to be turned into some Republican versus Democrat issue--because it's not only dissent that matters, but standing up for and agitating for right action, TOO.
Yes I take my oaths very seriously...all oaths. And if I was under oath in a court of law, and that oath came into conflict with my oath to my coven and trad guess who wins? I will lie, I will commit perjury to protect those I love. Hell if it comes into conflict with any even implied oath to someone I love...screw the Rule of Law.
The Shrub has committed treason, he has condoned treason, he is complicit in treason. That is how I define High Crime.
His lies have led to so many deaths, it is incomprehensible how to even begin to add up the tally. War Crimes,...that is how I define High Crime.
The Rule of Law is all but meaningless, because the Republican Party undermined habeus corpus.
And given all of this...What does Clinton even have to do with what Bush has done?
My point in the original post is not about whether or not Clinton should or should not have been impeached...but the fact that it is not "Relevant" to the current situation.
Every time someone brings up impeachment, the Republicans trot out Clinton, as if the fact that the senate did not confirm Clinton's impeachment gives Bush a free walk.
Rule of Law...Rule of Law...if it is not enforceable against Clinton then Bush gets to be a megalomaniac? Excuse me?
Logic please...not relevant.
It Does Not Matter What Clinton did or did not do.
Clinton lying about a bj does not give the Shrub a free pass. Period. It just is not Relevant!
Everytime I hear some Republican bring up Clinton I think elementary school. It is like some kid saying But Mom...Jimmy's mom lets him climb tress and throw water balloons at the postman,...so why can't I throw pipebombs at him also.
Yes I take my oaths very seriously...all oaths. And if I was under oath in a court of law, and that oath came into conflict with my oath to my coven and trad guess who wins? I will lie, I will commit perjury to protect those I love.
Your actions are irrelevant. As I am certain that you are not a former Governor of Arkansas, with a history of sexual improprieties, one of which has landed you in the discovery process in a Federal Court, while President of the United States, and as such there is no reason to swear to tell the truth under Oath.
You really think Bill Clinton loved Monica Lewinsky?
Hell if it comes into conflict with any even implied oath to someone I love...screw the Rule of Law.
Then I am unsure why you would complain at all.
The Shrub has committed treason, he has condoned treason, he is complicit in treason. That is how I define High Crime.
"...and misdemeanors...." IMO, the Founders considered criminal misconduct to be objectionable in a public official, and provided a mechanism for dealing with officials.
I don't see the need to compare Clinton and Bush. Perjury is a felony, as is Obstruction of Justice. We just cheered a jury for convicting Libby, and jeered Shrub for the commutation of his sentence. Clinton and Libby committed the same crime, yet we should give Clinton a pass because...?
Bush is his own issue, his own problem, and calls for his resignation are pointless. Impeachment is the only correct course, yet everyone and their brother is afraid to do what needs to be done.
The Rule of Law is all but meaningless, because the Republican Party undermined habeus corpus.
The Founders gave us a mechanism for dealing with lawlessness and tyranny among elected officials. They were very specific about the 2nd Amendment being a failsafe against tyranny by the elected.
And given all of this...What does Clinton even have to do with what Bush has done?
Democrats are the ones simultaneously bringing up Clinton, yet say they can't impeach Bush. Looks like a lot of basic cowardice on the part of the ruling party, because they don't want to deal with the problem for fear of Republicans calling them names. Oh well.
I don't care, because I think Clinton was adequately sanctioned for his perjury--and I think Bush needs to be drummed out of office.
Clinton lying about a bj does not give the Shrub a free pass. Period. It just is not Relevant!
Not relevant, past the point that the ruling party in Congress is too afraid of the ghost of the Clinton Impeachment to do their Constitutionally mandated duty to impeach and remove Bush from office. :shrug:
Everytime I hear some Republican bring up Clinton I think elementary school.
I'm not a Republican. I am not a Democrat. I've studied the Constitution and its various mechanisms, and rationales. I think BOTH of these Presidents need impeachment, and only one thus far has gotten it. Too many people are kissing up to the politics, and leaving too much to others, when they should be ACTING to affect change.
Perhaps the energies need to be turned toward convincing Congress to do what must be done, for the sake of our Republic?
There's not much point in the House impeaching the Shrub and Dick Cheney. It wouldn't do any good. We saw in the Clinton impeachment trial before the Senate the weakness of the impeachment process: it's a meaningless show if there's no realistic chance of obtaining the 2/3 majority necessary to convict. Nancy Pelosi is a sufficiently astute politician to realize this for herself. The sun is more likely to rise in the West than are 18 Republican senators to vote to convict George W. Bush.
The Founding Fathers simply did not anticipate party divisions so intense that impeachment votes in the Senate would divide strictly upon party lines. They appear to have assumed that the Senators would set party loyalties aside and hear the case impartially. We have seen how that works these days.
I'm afraid that we are stuck with the Shrub & Co for another seventeen months.
There's not much point in the House impeaching the Shrub and Dick Cheney. It wouldn't do any good. We saw in the Clinton impeachment trial before the Senate the weakness of the impeachment process: it's a meaningless show if there's no realistic chance of obtaining the 2/3 majority necessary to convict.
I don't think that the impeachment process is inherently weak. It was not intended that the process of removal be easy, or easily won on political grounds. Allowing a simple majority to convict would have been a terrible error, and allowed mere politics to rule a process that -should- only be used in cases where the Rule of Law is flaunted by those in elected office.
Nancy Pelosi is a sufficiently astute politician to realize this for herself.
Nancy Pelosi's complicity in this is wholly unforgivable. She is an oathbreaker at least as bad as Bush.
The sun is more likely to rise in the West than are 18 Republican senators to vote to convict George W. Bush.
I would think that turning the energies toward that project would be appropriate.
Here's the Reality.
We're a nation that depends on the Rule of Law to maintain our social contracts. ANY obstruction of that Rule of Law, ANY, is a criminal act. It doesn't matter if you are lying about playing doctor with a White House intern while involved in a civil suit in Arkansas, or if you are committing much more aggregious offenses in the name of enriching your buddies. High Crimes and Midemeanors are just that, and subject to impeachment just the same, BECAUSE they are high crimes and misdemeanors.
My support of impeachment in Clinton's case was strictly centered on the Rule of Law issue, not the ridiculous and insulting song about how someone's sex life has nothing to do with it. He was under oath, trying to escape the consequences of his actions as Governor of Arkansas in a civil suit, and he got caught. Period. End of story, and he took a kick because he swore an Oath to uphold the Constitution and Laws of the United States--not simply the ones that were convenient or not personally embarassing to him.
Bush and Cheney have done FAR worse. They need a swift kick from the Rule of law as well. There is NOTHING that compares what they have done to what Clinton did with Monica or his perjury. HOWEVER, the Rule of Law is what matters here, and if the Congress, and that cowardly Commie, Speaker Pelosi would do their jobs, and impeach the SOB's, we would be a LOT better off.
They all, every stinking one of them swore and OATH, and frankly NONE of them are upholding it. The last I checked, more than several of us have some very strong feelings about oaths that should have us ALL furious that our lawmakers and leaders think their Oath of office to be such quaint anachronisms. No patriot would sit by and so casually allow this to be turned into some Republican versus Democrat issue--because it's not only dissent that matters, but standing up for and agitating for right action, TOO.
The Founders would not approve--of any of this.
Reply
Hell if it comes into conflict with any even implied oath to someone I love...screw the Rule of Law.
The Shrub has committed treason, he has condoned treason, he is complicit in treason. That is how I define High Crime.
His lies have led to so many deaths, it is incomprehensible how to even begin to add up the tally. War Crimes,...that is how I define High Crime.
The Rule of Law is all but meaningless, because the Republican Party undermined habeus corpus.
And given all of this...What does Clinton even have to do with what Bush has done?
My point in the original post is not about whether or not Clinton should or should not have been impeached...but the fact that it is not "Relevant" to the current situation.
Every time someone brings up impeachment, the Republicans trot out Clinton, as if the fact that the senate did not confirm Clinton's impeachment gives Bush a free walk.
Rule of Law...Rule of Law...if it is not enforceable against Clinton then Bush gets to be a megalomaniac? Excuse me?
Logic please...not relevant.
It Does Not Matter What Clinton did or did not do.
Clinton lying about a bj does not give the Shrub a free pass. Period. It just is not Relevant!
Everytime I hear some Republican bring up Clinton I think elementary school.
It is like some kid saying But Mom...Jimmy's mom lets him climb tress and throw water balloons at the postman,...so why can't I throw pipebombs at him also.
Reply
Your actions are irrelevant. As I am certain that you are not a former Governor of Arkansas, with a history of sexual improprieties, one of which has landed you in the discovery process in a Federal Court, while President of the United States, and as such there is no reason to swear to tell the truth under Oath.
You really think Bill Clinton loved Monica Lewinsky?
Hell if it comes into conflict with any even implied oath to someone I love...screw the Rule of Law.
Then I am unsure why you would complain at all.
The Shrub has committed treason, he has condoned treason, he is complicit in treason. That is how I define High Crime.
"...and misdemeanors...." IMO, the Founders considered criminal misconduct to be objectionable in a public official, and provided a mechanism for dealing with officials.
I don't see the need to compare Clinton and Bush. Perjury is a felony, as is Obstruction of Justice. We just cheered a jury for convicting Libby, and jeered Shrub for the commutation of his sentence. Clinton and Libby committed the same crime, yet we should give Clinton a pass because...?
Bush is his own issue, his own problem, and calls for his resignation are pointless. Impeachment is the only correct course, yet everyone and their brother is afraid to do what needs to be done.
The Rule of Law is all but meaningless, because the Republican Party undermined habeus corpus.
The Founders gave us a mechanism for dealing with lawlessness and tyranny among elected officials. They were very specific about the 2nd Amendment being a failsafe against tyranny by the elected.
And given all of this...What does Clinton even have to do with what Bush has done?
Democrats are the ones simultaneously bringing up Clinton, yet say they can't impeach Bush. Looks like a lot of basic cowardice on the part of the ruling party, because they don't want to deal with the problem for fear of Republicans calling them names. Oh well.
I don't care, because I think Clinton was adequately sanctioned for his perjury--and I think Bush needs to be drummed out of office.
Clinton lying about a bj does not give the Shrub a free pass. Period. It just is not Relevant!
Not relevant, past the point that the ruling party in Congress is too afraid of the ghost of the Clinton Impeachment to do their Constitutionally mandated duty to impeach and remove Bush from office. :shrug:
Everytime I hear some Republican bring up Clinton I think elementary school.
I'm not a Republican. I am not a Democrat. I've studied the Constitution and its various mechanisms, and rationales. I think BOTH of these Presidents need impeachment, and only one thus far has gotten it. Too many people are kissing up to the politics, and leaving too much to others, when they should be ACTING to affect change.
Perhaps the energies need to be turned toward convincing Congress to do what must be done, for the sake of our Republic?
Reply
The Founding Fathers simply did not anticipate party divisions so intense that impeachment votes in the Senate would divide strictly upon party lines. They appear to have assumed that the Senators would set party loyalties aside and hear the case impartially. We have seen how that works these days.
I'm afraid that we are stuck with the Shrub & Co for another seventeen months.
Reply
I don't think that the impeachment process is inherently weak. It was not intended that the process of removal be easy, or easily won on political grounds. Allowing a simple majority to convict would have been a terrible error, and allowed mere politics to rule a process that -should- only be used in cases where the Rule of Law is flaunted by those in elected office.
Nancy Pelosi is a sufficiently astute politician to realize this for herself.
Nancy Pelosi's complicity in this is wholly unforgivable. She is an oathbreaker at least as bad as Bush.
The sun is more likely to rise in the West than are 18 Republican senators to vote to convict George W. Bush.
I would think that turning the energies toward that project would be appropriate.
Reply
Leave a comment