Cite for what? That a bunch of hysterical dipshits swore that they would move to Canada or Europe if Bush won in '04? Are you saying that that never happened?
It’s getting more and more frustrating to be a pragmatic moderate. The utter stupidity of both sides is soul crushing. Look at the subject of this thread? Impeachment? Really? Sure a few extreme morons might make some noise but it will never happen.
If I had to choose, I would have to say that the GOP, in general, is worse of late but that we’re just a pendulum swing away from that changing.
Y’know, there are a few people who said they’d move to Canada id W won in 2004, and then actually did. Maybe not very many, but there were some. Are there going to be a few Americas that cease to exist in a few years?
The problem with this nonsense is that we are facing really serious economic problems. When Bill Clinton was impeached for a consensual affair with a woman past the age of consent - no excuse me, when he was impeached for telling a lie in response to a question Ken Starr asked, hoping Clinton would lie - the economy was doing well. The United States could afford the silly distraction of Republicans giggling and snickering like twelve year old boys with a copy of Playboy. Now we can’t.
The reason I think there might not be impeachment hearings is that Clinton’s approval rating went up during his impeachment.
I think forcing citizens to participate in health-care, even if they don’t want to, is unconstitutional. I don’t think this provision would pass Supreme Court muster.
As for Obama - talk of impeaching him is just silly. Just vote him out in 2 years if you disagree with him.
As for Clinton - the impeachment proceedings against him were a useless adolescent waste of time. I wish he had looked into the camera and stated clearly and forcefully,“My personal life is none of your business!” and stuck to that.
Yeah, I thought we had been through this. Clinton didn’t engage in sex as defined by the bizarro definition put forth by the conservative plaintiffs: a reasonable person could say that his contact was conducted without an intent to arouse or gratify Lewinsky: Clinton did it for himself. Such an interpretation of the language is, “Reasonable at most and arguable at least”: sufficient for a defense against perjury. Remember the definition was put forth by Jones’ lawyers: if they wanted to say “deponent and any second party” they could have.
Incidentally, my fellow posters are missing the point. Inflation has been dropping for the past year: absent additional stimulus it will continue to fall. Monetary policy will become less and less effective. If we are going to jump start the economy, we need fiscal stimulus in a big way. Getting that from a Republican Congress is highly unlikely. So the US is stuck with a lost decade.
For their intransigence, the Republicans will be rewarded in 2012, provided growth in that year remains depressed. This recession is different than previous post-war experiences: congressional passivity is enough to wreck both economy and administration.
Reagan should have been impeached for authorizing the sell of weapons to Iran (Iran for fuck sake), then sending the profits illegally to fund the Contras in Nicaragua (which was also illegal under Congressional mandate).
I think Congress didn’t do it because Reagan was so popular and there wasn’t much of a desire to plunge the country back into a Watergate type scenerio.
Clinton gets the dubious honor of being the second President to be impeached by Congress (after Andrew Johnson). Schoolkids in American history and Civics will have this question on a test “Which two Presdidents have been impeached?”
I always thought impeach was a silly sounding word. Impeach. Maybe because the word “peach” is inside of it. I mean, it doesn’t sound any more intellegent than IMAPPLEMENT, or IMGRAPEMENT.
I’ve been mulling the same thing over in my head for the last few weeks but with a different spin. The economy is cyclical and I think that we’re on an upswing right now. I actually think that the economy will be doing much better in the next two years just because of a natural cycle. I think that unemployment will drop and the stock market will be up. The GOP will make the (incorrect) claim that it was because they took over the House and it will be to Obama’s detriment.
But the definition posited says “with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person”. Clinton was a person, and what he did with Lewinsky, he did to gratify his sexual desire.
It’s still lousy grounds for impeachment, and wouldn’t have come up if the Republicans hadn’t been witch-hunting. But Clinton really should have known better than to make that statement.
Agreed. He did all kinds of twisted legalistic bullshit from the very beginning of his time with her in anticipation of being asked about it some day. I recall that he always left the door slightly ajar because then he technically, from a legal point of view, wasn’t “alone” with her.
The thing that I found the scummiest about the whole thing was they were ready to paint Lewinsky as this insane delusional stalker. It would have worked too had she not saved the blue dress.
The more I think about it, the less likely I think impeachment is. The Republicans as a whole would be fools to start impeachment hearings with such a small majority in the Senate; even if they win all the close races, I can’t figure out how they’d have more than about 52 seats. That would mean they’d need what, fifteen Democratic senators to vote to impeach a sitting Democratic U.S. President on what we’re assuming are trumped up charges? That’s pretty preposterous in the current climate. So for impeachment proceedings to begin in the House, I’d have to assume that the Republicans in the House would be acting against any greater plan by the RNC to impeach. Impeachment proceedings by the Republicans right now would need to show one hell of a “high crime or misdemeanor” for them to get that much Democratic support.
Reagan and his entire staff “didn’t remember” when the house committee grilled them. They killed the investigation with lies.
Clinton was investigated for Whitewater, a 25 year old money wasting dead end and several other money and time wasting dead ends. They stayed in session when they should have disbanded. Tax money did not mean a thing to them. They had no mandate to go after Clinton’s sex life. It fell into their laps and they ran with it. It was a low point in American judicial history.
Yep, Clinton lied. But the committee should have been disbanded for abusing their “mandate” before it ever got there.
He was investigated for Travel gate, Vince Fosters suicide, White water, and who knows how many other dead ends Kenn Starr followed , wasting tax money by the truckload.
The Dems should have responded in kind to Bush and the bankers. Some of us were hoping for it.
