Why ,he is only giving the country over to big business and the wealthy. He is ignoring legislation with signing statements. He is advocating torture of prisoners. He is warring with the middle east.
But as far as we know, he is not having sex. That is an impeachable crime.
Please try not to plant in our heads even the idea of Bush having sex with anyone.
I prefer to think both his daughters are “snowflake babies.” I sleep better.
Cite?
Geeze. HAVING sex is an impeachable crime. NOT HAVING sex is an impeachable crime. I hate partisan politics.
How do you figure? Bush’s approval ratings were, IIRC, something like 70% when we went into Iraq. We had an election a year and a half later, and he won. What “mess” would be avoiding with a recall option?
If we have more direct feedback on policy we might be better off or worse off. I don’t see any reason to assume it would necessarily be one way instead of the other.
:rolleyes:
For what seems like the millionth time, the crime was perjury, and that is impeachable.
See post #58.
So what? Next time it’ll be a recall because someone is doing something you want him to do, and the rest of the country doesn’t like it. I don’t think it make sense to design our entire political system around the idea of getting rid of Bush. We have Congressional elections every 2 years. The problem is voter apathy, not the fact that we have “too few” elections.
For what seems the ten millionth time, you have to ignore both the entire political context and the fact that he was never charged to sustain the belief that it was a crime. As for its impeachability, for what seems like the hundred millionth time, that is simply whatever Congress wants it to be. Or, in this case, simply the opposition party in Congress.
Clear now?
I’m crystal clear that you think lying under oath is acceptable under certain circumstances. Absolutely, 100 percent clear.
[shrug] Fine with me!
“X is acceptable under certain circumstances” != “X is not necessarily an impeachable offense.”
I don’t think it’s acceptable under any circumstances, from anyone, for any reason. For that reason I think it’s an impeachable offense. I’m not alone in that.
That opinion in no wise supports or justifies the dishonest construction you put on ElvisL1ves’ statement.
Did he tell a lie? Yes. Was it under oath? Yes. That meets the two requirements for something to qualify as perjury. I don’t care about the context.
That opinion in no wise supports or justifies the shamefully dishonest construction you put on ElvisL1ves’ statement.
The impeachment of Clinton was complete bullshit. It was certainly a put up job after a fishing expedition.
However, he did lie while under oath. Why I couldn’t tell you. He had admitted he smoked pot after all (though that he didn’t inhale 
), we knew about his record during Vietnam…sleeping with some bimbo while in office would probably have shocked some but most would have gone ‘yeah well…they all do it. Who care?’. Instead he tried to brazen it out…and got caught in a lie (an impeachable offense, unlike doinking some bimbo in the Oval Office).
-XT
So he committed perjury, but before deciding whether it’s a crime I need to look at the context? Negative. A crime is a crime is a crime.
I put no dishonest construction on Elvis’ comment. He attempted to legitimize the crime because of context. There is no justification for perjury other than saving your own skin, and that is not a legitimate justification for blatant dishonesty.
You accused him of thinking “lying under oath is acceptable under certain circumstances,” which is neither what he said nor reasonably ineferrable from what he said. “X is not necessarily an impeachable offense” != “X is acceptable under some circumstances.” Put more simply, “unacceptable conduct” != “impeachable offense.”
For my part, I have far greater, and more morally supportable, objections to the lies a president tells the public when not under oath. You want to talk about unacceptable conduct?!
For the millionth time, the indictment used words to make it resemble perjury, which it was not.