And they wanted to Impeach Clinton...

[MatrixmaN]

...for getting aHead (haha, I made a funny).

Really tho, as if Bush hasn't done worse to our country than Clinton has, yet this overly superficial, holywood/soap opera-laden country has the gusto to even suggest impeaching our (old)leader for having a little fun in the office.

This guy comes in, starts war, breeds intercontinental hate, defiles our economy, lies, cheats, then he doesn't even get a slight hint of impeachment from what ive heard?

Phoohickey if you ask me....

[Telexen]

This is slightly (okay extremely) arrogant..

You must have better things to do?

[DPA]

Aggg CRAP!

yes i understand that this is your opinion, but really, think about... any "atrocities" that our country has performed in the past events of war pile up to a small hill of beans compaired to what goes on in other countries.

example: Bhurma is trying [actually is] to attack thailand on a daily basis for the sole purpose of the control of a valley so that their drug smugglers don't get shot when they are running back and forth with cash/booty.

what does the rest of the world care? So if you lived in thailand, wouldn't you want some help from that kind of crap. as far as i know, we haven't offered any help, but regardless, we have the power to stop these kinds of war crimes. And the people would gladly accept any kind of assistance given that they weren't shot in the face for voicing their opinons of suffering and struggle. interestingly enough, in iraq, your opinon was of no concern, just your gun forced loyalty.

So when we go into Iraq and take a horrible man out of power to "liberate" the people, wouldn't you imagine that their people felt a sigh of relief? I mean really, how would you feel if Bush was grabbing some of your friends and neighbors at total random and saying "here, stand in this field and tell us if these fumes hurt"

we stopped a madman, who cares if we didn't find any "WMD's" they were probably smuggled out a long time ago, don't worry, if they didn't have them, they would have.

look at both sides of the knife before you use it.

*note* im not trying to start a feud here, im just trying to balance this thread, its a little radical.

[CERuppel]

"Radical"?

Breaking at least one treaty, violating at least one UN directive, invading and occupying two foreign countries...

At home he has pardoned the grand theft of hundreds of thousands of retirement accounts, pillaged social security, and handed the rich even more of the cake than before (hint: the rich don't pay payroll taxes, nearly a third of your total tax burden).

On the bigger front, the bill of rights has been reduced to a memo, the first, second, fourth and sixth amendments are being rewritten nearly daily, and the forty hour work week is being "reviewed".

So please tell me, just what about this seems so "radical"? Just another day at congress...

[ShawnD1]

I dislike Bush a lot but I wouldn't go so far as to say he caused the downturn of the economy. It was going down before he even got into office, he just happened to inherit it. However, I would say that he's not really doing a hell of a lot to help the bad economy. He's sort of stuck on the idea of "If I bring home a war victory, the economy will do better"; this has worked before, but that was before we knew we were the top in the world and nobody could touch us. Now that we know we can take over a country at will, it doesn't exactly impress us when we do it.

[RADAR1797]

Section 4 of Article 2 of the Constitution

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.

Can anyone point out one of these violations?

-RADAR

[ShawnD1]

I know a crime he did; aiding a felon. Remember the whole thing about people losing their 401k because of that Enron BS? Notice how none of them were ever convicted? That had to be an inside job.

[MatrixmaN]

Sorry, was bored at work and decided to post a spur thought.....I'll try not to do it again

[RADAR1797]

Shawn,

Do you have proof? Theories are not good enough for legal proceedings.

-RADAR

[ShawnD1]

Well we KNOW that Enron executives hid information and lied. There is no way they can say that they run the company but at the same time has no idea about their financial situation, it doesn't work that way. If you run the company, you know exactly how the company is doing. When a suspect can easily be tied to a crime by association, it's easy to get a conviction. For example, cigarettes are sold to a 10 year old at a specified time at a specified store. If agents question the guy working at that time and he says he was working there at that time and he was not working with anybody else, he is immediately deemed guilty. This could have easily been applied with that Enron scandle but it never did; it had to be an inside job.