posted
Given that the previous administration is now previous, I find myself uninterested in revisiting its actions, barring any significant new revelations.
Unless, of course, they start saying that something the current administration does is bad, when they did the same thing and forgave themselves.
But that's not likely. So I vote for letting it rest.
[ February 25, 2002, 16:32: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Ok, but just out of curiousity: do you feel Impeachment should always be the first response when an elected official "lies" under oath, or should other options such as censure and trial after term be utilized depending on the severity of the alleged lie?
posted
No, I don't think it should be the first response, depending upon the severity.
Fibbing about a bj is not an impeachable offnese, IMHO. However, despite pundit comments to the contrary, that was not the entirety of the charge, though it may have been the part that led to the rest, just as the Watergate break-in (relatively minor) led to the cover-up, etc. that led to the beginning of the (IMHO, also rightful)impeachment against Nixon.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
I can't believe the day has come that I've found someone so utterly lacking in mental capacity as to actually post that in a public forum.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
[ February 25, 2002, 20:47: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
And Omega has yet to respond to the questions posed earlier. Or look through some of the links. Or even acknowledge having a brain capable of independent thought.
posted
I think they should have just video taped Monica giving Billy a little suck, and then sent it to Hillary while she was at one of her high society tupperware parties. Punishment, most dire.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
For someone who professes to believe in the Founder's Intent, clearly you can see that there's a big difference between lying about, say, trying to thwart the other partys' election campaigns and getting a blowjob.
If you're under oath, there is NO difference. Perjury is perjury is perjury. Simple as that.
Impeachment is not supposed to be a personal punishment for wrongdoing.
Impeachment is for the purpose of removing a criminal from office. Threat to national interests or not is irrelevant.
You want to argue Clinton should be punished? Fine. Please explain why impeachment, and not censure, trial after office, or *GASP!* even a prosecutorial decision not to press the case.
Because that is the legal proceedure. If someone has committed a crime, they should be punished in accordance with the law. They should be tried and convicted by a jury (assuming, of course they're guilty). Since you have to impeach and remove an elected official before they can actually be put on trial, impeachment was the proper response to the President committing a crime. Or are you arguing that the President is above the law?
And Omega has yet to respond to the questions posed earlier.
Oh, no, I've been busy for the last 24 hours. I must be ignoring the threat. Horror of horrors.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:If you're under oath, there is NO difference. Perjury is perjury is perjury. Simple as that.
No one denies that. But, er, why not censure? Or trial after he leaves office ... ?
quote:Impeachment is for the purpose of removing a criminal from office. Threat to national interests or not is irrelevant.
George W. Bush has been convicted of a crime, drunk driving. There's strong evidence to suggest he failed to serve his complete term with the National Guard. Shall we impeach him, too?
quote:Because that is the legal proceedure. If someone has committed a crime, they should be punished in accordance with the law. They should be tried and convicted by a jury (assuming, of course they're guilty). Since you have to impeach and remove an elected official before they can actually be put on trial, impeachment was the proper response to the President committing a crime. Or are you arguing that the President is above the law?
Yeah, you must have not read that one option I presented. Namely, trying him AFTER he was out of office. But, hey, no one on this board expects you to pay attention to all the facts (at least, you've never in the past shown any concern for anything that doesn't fit your brainwashed concerns).
I also noticed you completely avoided those links. Interesting. Then again, those who live in a world of lies generally stay away from anything which might paint things in a new light for them like an educated person from a derenged evangalist.
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
Assuming that you would prefer Conservative Candidates over Liberal ones (and assuming that the present political state of the Republicans is Conservative, and Democrat Liberal), please read this Article
Harris is a neo-conservative. Substantially more honest, you say? Then why the hell is he trying to duck all accountability in this case?
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I didn't know suing for libel was an attempt to duck accountability.
I didn't know DEFENDING YOURSELF in a wrongful-death suit was an attempt to duck accountability.
That's extremely poor logic. It demonstrates a clear "guilty until proven innocent" mode of thinking.
Since the article contained no useful data as to whether the premier is or is not actually guilty of anything, there's no way to determine whether the premier is honest or not.
The use of taxpayer funds is no indication... taxpayer funds are often used both to prosecute AND to defend politicians.
[ February 26, 2002, 16:30: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Yeah, you must have not read that one option I presented. Namely, trying him AFTER he was out of office.
Well, you can't very well try him while he's IN office, now can you? That's the entire purpose of the impeachment proceeding.
George W. Bush has been convicted of a crime, drunk driving.
Which he payed the legal penalty for.
here's strong evidence to suggest he failed to serve his complete term with the National Guard.
Assuming it's even true, this was during the Vietnam era, no? Was there not a blanket amnesty declared for all such persons? Further, is there not a statute of limitations?
But, er, why not censure?
Because that is not the legally required punishment for the commission of the crime of perjury, and the President, believe it or not, is not above the law.
Or trial after he leaves office ... ?
And leave a known criminal in office for years? WHY?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Omega still has yet to take even a glance at the links provided. Probably because he's afraid that if he does, he might have to admit he is wrong about the Clinton/Perjury thing.
Omega, try checking those links. Try responding to them. One wonders why you're avoiding them ... then again, twe do know how you avoid things like "rationalization", "truth", and "shades of grey."
quote:Which he payed the legal penalty for.
Interesting logic. So, when someone pays the penalty for their crimes by getting out of jail, they should get all their rights back? Right to vote, right to own a gun? I thought you were against all of that, Ommiechops?
quote:Assuming it's even true, this was during the Vietnam era, no? Was there not a blanket amnesty declared for all such persons? Further, is there not a statute of limitations?
Ah, I see. And yet you and Rob and JeffR love bringing up Clinton's draft-dodging. Double standard. See, Clinton was at least honest about how he felt about the Vietnam War. George played it safe, got into the National Guard instead of actually having to see combat, got expensive training on the tax-payer's dime to fly jets, then didn't serve his whole commitment. I notice how you resort to a legal defense of George, instead of the "moral" attacks you take against Democrats.
quote:When President Jimmy Carter was inaugurated on January 20, 1977, his first act was to grant amnesty to draft evaders and some deserters from the Vietnam War.
[ February 26, 2002, 19:22: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Gee, I guess Bush should be impeached and dragged through a humiliating trial. I'm sure Omega, who doesn't want to leave a criminal in office, will lead the charge.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
