Clinton Should have Been Impeached!

www.rightgrrl.com...

I put this in scandalism because the Democrats obviously had a scandal going in that they did not Judge Clinton according to the Constitution.

The Constitution specifically states that to be impeached one must have comitted High crime, a mis-demeanor or Treason.

Clinton committed High Crime. Which was Perjury.

The Democrats obviously weasled around until Perjury could be defined such that Clinton was not guilty.

But that left one thing unchecked.

Mis-demeanor.

www.c-span.org...

Which is any immoral act.

Clinton partook in the immoral act of adultery, and by the Washington District code, oral sex.

These two acts were more than enough for Impeachment...without the Perjurous acts.

The judgement of Democrats is so dispicable, the party should be abolished.

I don't really know what to say other than two things:

1) Do you know what impeachment is?

Impeachment is the process of formally charging a president with a crime. Not the removal. I would reword your title (unless you want to look stupid).

2) Did you ever notice what he did before he had this come up?

He killed the deficit we had after the gulf war. He gave our country a reserve of money (that could have helped us with our many money troubles today). He gave us the patriot missile supply that we used in Iraq. Clinton decreased unimployment to a outstanding low. He basically made the US a better place. ...and you go on about private problems and lying? If you have a problem with that, you should make a topic called "Bush Should Be Impeached!"

Bush hasn't done a **** thing but make the country a bad place. Plus he does have problems and as you have seen, he does lie.

[Edited on 7-17-2003 by Cammo Dude]

Ok...guess you're right initially I made a flub (not through ignorance though, but through huriedness to get my point across).

Points:

1) Clinton should have been convicted of his Impeachment because he WAS guilty of all the charges.

The judgement by the democrats especially was piss-poor in that they did not convict him.

2) The Impeachment was well founded, for the above reasons...therefore no Democrat can say "oh they just chased after his getting a blow job, wasting tax dollars!"

That alone was a high ground for Impeachment. AND Conviction.

Furthermore he comitted purjery, obviously "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Well sorry to say but Oral sex IS sexual relations.

Now...I just love how liberals not only first resort to calling names...but like the children they are they continue to do so.

I however like the bigger man have completely overhauled the actual meaning of the thread.

But I'm not bothering to change the title any, you can just live with it.

Yet again, a liberal knows I'm right, and chages me as "stupid" for minor mistakes.

-Laughable.

[Edited on 17-7-2003 by FreeMason]

[Edited on 17-7-2003 by FreeMason]

Another good point to address...and why my respect for Liberals is in the negatives...

Bush should NOT be Impeached.

He has comitted no acts of Treason. (Neither did Clinton).

Bush has never lied while sworn under oath (Clinton has).

Bush has never comitted a mis-demeanor after taking the oath of office (Clinton has).

Look at you. Still riding Clinton's jock huh? Can't get enough of Clinton's evil penis even after he's been out of office for 3 years. Its just pathetic.

and after all the goodwill he brought this country. Tsk-tsk-tsk. (shakes head slowly)

What good-will.

I care less about the Economy and more about the Autonomy of the United States, which Clinton ruined by making us look like "yes-men" who do anything the UN tells them to.

Sorry, Clinton was a horrible president...whose "zero-deficit" program proved a failure when at the end of his term we hit a recession.

There are those who say that the President�s current popularity or the Republican majority in the House and Senate preclude the possibility of his impeachment. Perhaps they are underestimating the moral integrity of our Republican congressmen. In fact, some of them have already publicly stated their opinions on this subject. They did so in February of 1999 when they served as Impeachment Trial Managers for the Senate Impeachment Trial of former President Clinton. Let�s look at what they had to say then:

Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Illinois):
�There is a visibility factor in the president's public acts, and those which betray a trust or reveal contempt for the law are hard to sweep under the rug...They reverberate, they ricochet all over the land and provide the worst possible example for our young people.�

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin):
�The truth is still the truth, and a lie is still a lie, and the rule of law should apply to everyone, no matter what excuses are made by the president's defenders�We have done so because of our devotion to the rule of law and our fear that if the president does not suffer the legal and constitutional consequences of his actions, the impact of allowing the president to stand above the law will be felt for generations to come�laws not enforced are open invitations for more serious and more criminal behavior.�

Steve Chabot (R-Ohio):
�It would be wrong for you to tell America's children that some lies are all right. It would be wrong to show the rest of the world that some of our laws don't really matter.�

Steve Buyer (R- Indiana):
�I have also heard some senators from both sides of the aisle state publicly: I think these offenses rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Now, to state publicly that you believe that high crimes and misdemeanors have occurred but for some reason you have this desire not to remove the president -- that desire, though, does not square with the law, the Constitution, and the Senate's precedents for removing federal judges for similar offenses.�

Rep. Lindsey Graham (R - South Carolina, Now Senator):
�The president of the United States sets atop of the legal pyramid. If there's reasonable doubt about his ability to faithfully execute the laws of the land, our future would be better off if that individual is removed. And let me tell you where it all comes down to me. If you can go back and explain to your children and your constituents how you can be truthful and misleading at the same time, good luck.�

These, of course, are just a few examples. It is likely that most of those who voted to impeach Clinton are on record as to the high ethical standards they were following. Certainly, they must follow these same standards when considering Bush�s egregious lies and the consequences of those lies. It is time to draft the Articles of Impeachment and give the case no more leniency than was given to former President Clinton.

Originally posted by FreeMason
What good-will.

I care less about the Economy and more about the Autonomy of the United States, which Clinton ruined by making us look like "yes-men" who do anything the UN tells them to.

Sorry, Clinton was a horrible president...whose "zero-deficit" program proved a failure when at the end of his term we hit a recession.

Care less aobut the economy? Tell that to the +6% unemployed who DO. Yes-man to the UN. Well, didn't we create the UN to avoid the Hilters of the world? (Sorta like we have now with the Shrub.) The US is not an island unto itself and the day you recognize that, is the day of your enlightenment.

And please leave Clinton's penis alone....for ONCE.

Originally posted by FreeMason
Sorry, Clinton was a horrible president...whose "zero-deficit" program proved a failure when at the end of his term we hit a recession.

You know why we hit a recession? This time it isn't fully Bush's fault. 911. You should not critize that program. I would like to see anyone's plan work through 911.

How can you say Clinton was horrible? I just gave examples of some of his high points. Still you don't see that to be good?

Name me some great things Bush did. I would like to see what you think is so great about him. ...and don't name me things that any president would do as a given (like what happened after 911).

[Edited on 7-17-2003 by Cammo Dude]

Originally posted by FreeMason
Ok...guess you're right initially I made a flub (not through ignorance though, unlike people like you do Cammo, but through huriedness to get my point across).

Given the nature of your return to ATS, we expect "extra special good" behavior from you to show us the earnestness of your appology. Please make an effort to help all of us believe that your appology was sincere.

Thanks William, note taken Poste edited.

.....thanks, I guess......

Because of your quick action I won't take it farther.

As for this topic though...

Uh Cammo Dude, 9/11 was in 2001, we hit a recession in late 1999, mid 2000.

As for his economic policy, the zero-deficit is a GOOD idea yes, but Clinton was expanding the budget into federal programs (taking powers from the states) while cutting military.

If he didn't expand those programs he'd have had an even LARGER budget.

And I think to try it in 8 years was too much...it sapped our economy.

As for other problems...look at EO 13083, that right there is PLENTY.

More grounds for Impeachment since EO 13083 not only tried to harm the governmental institution, it tried to change its very nature against the constitution.

That attempt should have been Conviction worthy.

Well cammo, you did call me stupid...edit that and we're even There really are better ways to point out flaws in arguments than the ways we've both been resorting too ....

Oh but on point Bush goods...My favorite is his freezing the Economy after 9/11, that quick action saved billions of dollars.

Our economy would really be in the crapper if it weren't for that.

Other good: Iraq and Afghanistan, the attrocities in both nations needed to be ended. Even if Bush lied, the effect was worth it.

Originally posted by FreeMason
As for his economic policy, the zero-deficit is a GOOD idea yes, but Clinton was expanding the budget into federal programs (taking powers from the states) while cutting military.

Sure, putting money into federal programs can be trouble at times, but cutting military? Why would you have the military take money when it isn't needed at the time? To keep it at its peak? It seemed they were alright for this unjustified war. If you have a problem with Clinton killing the economy, you have no room to talk.

Bush (sorry for bringing him up everytime... ) is "sapping" our economy with the largest deficit in US history. Mostly because he wanted to take over Iraq for corporation interests. I can just see Iraq not giving us cheaper oil. That is what Bush meant when he said the economy will get better if we have war. Right now he is gambling with the country's economy. If this all does happen, our economy will really be in trouble.

Alright...

Do we really need to be hashing through this crap over and over and over and over and over and over and over again?

Earth to ATS members: conservatives dislike Clinton and liberals dislike Bush --- ohmygod what a shocker!

This constant back-and-forth is slowly turning ATS from a conspiracy discussion board to a place where liberals and conservatives bash each other over the head with the recent president they hate the most.

[size=10]ENOUGH!

Unless you're discussing a conspiratorial slant to any given president, let's move past the "he sucks" or "he rocks" bullsh!t. It's just popular talk radio tripe that was old the day it started.

Originally posted by FreeMason
Oh but on point Bush goods...My favorite is his freezing the Economy after 9/11, that quick action saved billions of dollars.

Other good: Iraq and Afghanistan, the attrocities in both nations needed to be ended. Even if Bush lied, the effect was worth it.

Truely what does it matter now. We are losing 7 billion dollars per month in Iraq. ...that doesn't include the loss at home.

Sure freezing the economy helped, but he lost that through going after Iraq. What did Iraq do that needed to be done at that time, right then? Nothing.

Bush felt he was going to lose the next election if he didn't get the economy up. He got scared, lied, and got us in to a gambling situation.

Originally posted by William
Alright...

Do we really need to be hashing through this crap over and over and over and over and over and over and over again?

Earth to ATS members: conservatives dislike Clinton and liberals dislike Bush --- ohmygod what a shocker!

This constant back-and-forth is slowly turning ATS from a conspiracy discussion board to a place where liberals and conservatives bash each other over the head with the recent president they hate the most.

[size=10]ENOUGH!

Unless you're discussing a conspiratorial slant to any given president, let's move past the "he sucks" or "he rocks" bullsh!t. It's just popular talk radio tripe that was old the day it started.

Sorry William, you popped that up when I was typing my last thing.

Edit:

Now that I think, this place is to discuss our views not be stopped because there are too many things on this.

I don't think this will get outside of this Topic. It won't take over the forums.

Why worry William?

[Edited on 7-17-2003 by Cammo Dude]

Glad you asked about the military Cammo.

Our military is severly out-dated now.

First off, our most "current" weapons systems are mostly from the late 80s.

Secondly many of them are "falling apart" the funding was so bad that the maintanence of the machines were becoming very bad...

Finally, our Army especially...IS out dated by far.

We kicked butt in Iraq, but look at the opponents.

Poorly trained, most fighting out of fear, their best armor was the T-72, a tank that could not penetrate our Armor at even 100 meters, while we could hit them from several miles...

But there are more nations, such as China.

China has a 2million man army, a paramilitary force of about 16million.

Their navy is not extensive but they have been making much more out of it more recently.

They have two tanks better than our own by 100meters range, the T-85 and the even better T-90.

I doubt it will be long before they have a sufficient helicopter force of something akin to the Tiger design (which is merely an improvement upon the Apache).

They have the world's largest Airforce.

They have SAMs that lock on to the vortex generated by the jet. (radarless).

They have powerful anti-ship missiles

They have a vast Mountain infantry.

The Germans have the Leapord II which is better than our M1A2s.

Europe now has the Tiger which is I'd say as good as the apache.

Our most up-to-date machine is the F-22 a remarkable aircraft.

But our industry is so low in the Military market that waging a world war would take great preparations.

We have only one factory even capable of producing tanks, it is in Ohio, its standards are so high that it is completely useless for making tanks in War time.

We have mostly thanks to Clinton a vast "peace-time army" that is incapable of waging a long term war without a complete overhall of our economy.

Today's warfare would be so fast we might not be able to afford such time, since we will most likely be the FIRST targets...and not have the option of joining in after it's dying out...

I also but this is my opinion, disagree with Clinton allowing so many women into the Military.

It's not their place to fight, anything else they'd want to do doesn't amount to that, it is not their place to be "regulars."

When they need to fight so be it but as always before, it has been a last resort....now due to Clinton, they are everywhere but on the Front lines on ground.

They're in every other combat position imaginable.