Hooray Dan Savage!

Boo George Bush!

No.

To get his approval rating down to zero, you might as well start with the hard part.

Conservative Texans. For instance, that Scipio guy.

Bush was an excellent governor, skillfully manoeuvering through the paridigm Texas was undergoing. I thought he might be a good president, though I voted for the late Harry Browne.

I can say without shame I was mistaken. He signed every spending increase, every expansion of the social control Welfare Sate he could get his hands on. Nearly every plank from his domestic platform was jettisoned as soon as he took the Oath of Office.

I am not trying to argue with anyone here; I just would like you to see the critique of a Conservative.

Concentrate on winning back the House; that is where the Articles of Impeachment must start. If you win the House, you can consider the merits of impeachment, Then find a candidate who can beat Rice or McCain.

There is plenty of fight in this board, now instill it in your party. The next president will have the opportunity to move the nation far away from where it is now.

That is, if you want the advice of a conservative Texan.

[Edited on Mar 13, 2006 8:34PM]

All this time and you haven't even gotten the details of your witch hunt correct, eh? Clinton did not commit "perjury." He lied about a non-material fact in a civil deposition, which is NOT perjury. The question shouldn't have even been permitted, as it had nothing to do with the questioning. But keep trying.

Really? What is the argument being made?

FISA.

Once again, Clinton's lie was not "perjury." And yeah, even if he did commit perjury, that hardly rises to the level of violating federal law through the use of warrantless wire taps - an act which is not only criminal in nature, but also unconstitutional.

"Let's impeach him because he potentially did a buch of bad stuff!!!!"

Never mind that the wiretapping isn't unlawfull untill a court, and we all know it would have to be SCOTUS, say's so. The fact of the matter being that everyone in the Congress (only a slight exageration) want's the govt to be able to do what they have been doing and worst case if judged illegal the law will probably be change shortly thereafter or sooner. That W seems to have reasonable baces for believing it isn't illegal so............


I keep hearing the "impeach" chant but they always are a bit week on what for

Is this supposed to be satire of some sort?

Someone should make some of those little rubber bracelets made with ITMFA on them, I'd totally wear that.

I know my spelling can be a bit off but I din't think it was that hard to understand.

Really though, accusations are being thrown around as if they were proven fact when they are still very much in debate. Even if there is some real basis, we all know Bush won't ever be impeached for anything that has come to light so far..........But keep your hopes up!! There is still 2 more years!

Oh. Look who's back. Huzzah.

Thanks, it's nice to be missed

Like breaking the law?

Wrong. No court has to hear the matter at all. Congress is the only body that is charged with defining a "high crime." The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. The Senate would then try the president with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. This is NOT an Art. III proceeding. In order to convict the president, a two-thirds majority of the senate is required.

Following conviction, the president can not be actually punished by the Senate, save, being removed from office. BUT the president would then be liable for criminal prosecution in federal court.

No, that's not a "slight exaggeration at all. It is a gross misrepresentation of fact, bordering on a laugable lie. Everyone in Congress wants the president to have "all lawful authority" available to him in his role as the chief executive. MANY in Congress do not believe that the constitution, nor FISA, nor Supreme Court precedent, grants the president the authority to secretly circumvent federal law. The do not believe he has this authority because of the substantial weight of precedent, the explicit language of the Act, and the vast majority of legal scholarship in this area.

I see. The president believes he didn't break the law, and despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, his belief is dispositive. Unilateral power-grabs are so much fun.

Well, that is very persuasive, given your inability to actually grasp the facts; identify the issues; or apply the law.


[Edited on Mar 14, 2006 by Dead_Ringer]

Forget the whole trial and jury thing Dead_Ringer is here to save us from that whole thing.

As I understand the basis for Bush having the legal right to order the wiretapes is something he claimes that the use of force resolution gives him the authority to do. The legal questions seem to me to be ones that scotus would indead have to deal with, whether the resolution equal a declaration of war in terms of pesidential authority, and if the president in times of war would have the authority he claims. Pretending there is only one side to the issue is dishonest. As for my "outright dishonesty" name 10 people in congress who have said they are against the "wiretapping" as claimed? The democratic leadership said it was illegal and Bush doesn't have the authority but not that they would be against doing it just that Bush should of gone to them for a law alowing it.

Is that a better display of the facts? Of course vomiting bile and spewing insults while being either blind or dishonest seems to be more your speed but to each their own.

Michael Savage is cooler.

Heh, I didn't say that he "potentially did bad stuff", I said that he did bad stuff that was potentially impeachable. Or, at least, would be if we had a Congress that wasn't Republican-controlled.

And...Michael Savage is worse than Ann Coulter, and that's saying something.

ITMFA, go ahead if you need some Dick.

Is this even remotely correct?

I just thought they wanted Bush to have, you know, got a court to authorise the taps. Not Congress to pass a new fucking law.

If I am incorrect, can you show me a source to demonstrate your assertion?