NEWS: Conservatives Hate Bush Too

I see the vast majority of the American public being against a move like this, especially if it was started by the military. However if it was started by the majority of the American public and the military backed it up, now we would be getting some where. How ever that is not necessary, we are a republic just vote for goodness sakes. Hey if you hate it that much go into politics, I am sure you could budge the millstone crushing the public then.

I did vote, as did the majority, for someone else.
I don't hate America, I hate what our government (and big business lobbying groups) are doing to it. I spent 10 years as a long-haired dissident, then joined the military to see for myself. It was then that I discovered my "anti-American" sentiment was in fact true, red-blooded American angst. Since then I have devoted myself to seeking out the issues, voting, and speaking out in forums whenever and wherever I can.
I do not want a violent overthrow of any country, even though it was Thomas Jefferson himself who said the government should be overthrown every 20 years to keep it from growing into something heinous (paraphrasing). And I feel personally that there is no way to defeat this monster from the inside. The only other non-violent solution I have come up with is to stop feeding the monster (taxes), but as "they" have made encouraging others to not pay taxes illegal, I of course would NEVER suggest such a thing. That would be wrong...

I didn't mean that in an insulting way at all and I am sorry if you took it that way. You know I wonder what would happen if on the next presidential election the entire populace refused to vote and protested. I mean that would be a clear message and it would be totally awesome, americans filling the streets with picket signs not about electoral candidates. I am all for the non violent revolutions after all Gandi is one of my heroes.

Ya know, ya keep talking like that and you're going to out yourself as a liberal !!!

Their are some issues that I do not see eye to eye with on the liberal side unfortunately. I won't mention them because they are pretty controversial and cause pointless yet funny arguments.

Actually Clinton was not impeached. If he had been he would have been thrown out of office. There was a motion to impeach which was defeated.

I know this has already been touched on but I had to respond as soon as I read the comment.

Anyways conservatives are right to hate Bush, he's a shitty conservative. Hell, he's a shitty neo-Conservative.

Every time I see this thread, all I can think of is that conservatives like shaved pussy.

I spend too much time on here.

*sigh*

Clinton was impeached.

While articles of impeachment were passed against him it is true the impeachemtn trial led to an acquital. Thus I would say that like Nixon and Andrew Johnson before him Bill Clinton was in fact not impeached. It's like the difference between arrested and convicted. At least that's always been my understanding.

Your understanding is wrong.

So then the Senate did in fact convict him on the articles of impeachment? That's funny I could have sworn that they fell short of the 2/3 majority needed to convict. Yes impeachment proceedings were undertaken against Clinton but ultimately they proved fruitless, he was acquited. All the Wahington Post cover demonstrates was that the House passed articles of impeachment against him and their headline writer was a fan of hyperbole.

Unless the articles of impeachment themselves count as impeachment and the trial is not considered as such. Is the impeachment the equivalent of arrest and the trial the result of impeachement, done to determine the punishment? That's not quite in keeping with what I've always understood to be the nature of impeachment in the US which is that it is comprised of both actions by the House and the Senate. I would point out that Wikipedia agrees with me but that's hardly a glowing endorsement.

The whole country's got a fucked up mentality. We all got a gang mentality. Republicans are fucking idiots. Democrats are fucking idiots. Conservatives are idiots and liberals are idiots.

Anyone who makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a fucking fool. Everybody, nah, nah, nah, everybody is so busy wanting to be down with a gang! I'm a conservative! I'm a liberal! I'm a conservative! It's bullshit!

Be a fucking person. Listen. Let it swirl around your head. Then form your opinion.

No normal decent person is one thing. OK!?! I got some shit I'm conservative about, I got some shit I'm liberal about. Crime - I'm conservative. Prostitution - I'm liberal."

Chris Rock.

I think this means you're open minded, actually think, and use your brain.
Just trying to negate some hate that goes on on these boards sometimes.
More debate, less ego and hate.

No.

They did.

When the House votes for impeachment proceedings, then whoever has officially been impeached regardless of the outcome. I think your getting confused over the use of "impeachment proceedings". When the House impeaches, then the Senate has procedures set in place (i.e. impeachment proceedings). It doesn't mean that the individual hasn't been impeached. Whether the individual is convicted or not has nothing to do with whether they've been impeached. Essentially impeachment is a formal accusation.

See:
Impeachment History
Bill Clinton
Cornell Law: Impeachment
Metropolitian College of New York: The Constitution
The Miller Center of Public Affairs--The University of Virginia: Domestic Affairs
The Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies: Trivia--The Presidency
Northwestern University School of Law: The Clinton Miscalculus

Technically, it is the trial that is considered the Impeachment, but again the outcome doesn't matter.

More or less.

Well, a lot of people use the term incorrectly (if that makes you feel any better) to include the entire process including the act of removal, but that's incorrect.

As I've learned to do when explaining this mistake to people - put briefly.

Impeachment is the (political) equivalent to the (criminal) indictment. Not conviction.

And Wikipedia in fact gets it right. In the very first paragraph:

You win. I thought the Washington Post headline was enough, but apparently not.

So, the first time I ever heard of Good Ol' W, was back during the first Gulf War. It was in a segment on CNN about him being busted for possession of COCAINE!!!!

I wanna know what ever came of that. Clinton got harassed for smoking some pot in college, but W snorts coke, and no one seems ta know about it, even though it was announced on the news.

Am I the only one who remembers that?

Was it erased from time and space?

Oh well....

I'd forgotten about that.

Let's all pitch in and get Peggy Noonan a T-shirt. She'd look really hot in it.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Read further down the page chief. At the US section of that article.

The funny thing about your response, is that you just schooled yourself. I'm not sure I've actually ever seen that on the boards before. Congratulations...

By getting the government to get the fuck out of the way?

How exactly can you get the government to get the fuck out of the way when you are talking about programs that would be run by the government?

Secret Libertarian logic, which the likes of you are not privileged to understand.

But I'll try to explain it to you anyway.

The problem is too much government. See?

Man, I miss snake oil ...