Take it from me, the support of Boulder residents only hurts the cause.

Why must I see that theme pic again! Regeme change, please!

Lie about getting a blow job get impeached

Talk about impeaching a man for decieving us into a full blown war.... get called a crazy person.

Well, it's all about "crime" and "evidence." There is no substantial evidence that Bush knowingly lied about going to war. Additionally, he was not under any "court" oath to be telling the truth... only a moral code.

Furthermore, if he (for some reason) were to be indicted, and an actual "crime" was determined (lying is not a crime, unless under oath) there is a great chance that a whole bunch of a other members of congress would be indicted as well. From both parties. Let us not forget the number of other congressmen and women who made "Invade Iraq Now" speeches. Their defense would be, "The President told us to..." but that would hold up for about 30 seconds. In short, it would result in mass chaos in the federal branch.

Now, onto Clinton. Clinton knowingly and purposely lied under oath, committing perjury. The "crime" was not the blow-job... the "crime" was lying about it in a deposition. That is the same crime you or I would be charged with, if we lied under oath. Now, you may disagree with WHY Clinton had to testify... but is undeniable that he perjured himself.


IN SHORT... Clinton, commits perjury, gets impeached. Bush, commits no official "crime," does not get impeached.

The reason Boulder gets the "crazy people" label, is because they're trying to make up the rules as they go along, to fit the emotion they have towards this particular issue. You can't do that. And to think you can, either shows gross ignorance of the law... of insanity to think you'll get away with it.

Here is the oath he took:
"I, name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

There is substantial evidence he has violated the Constitution and the Constitutional rights of American citizens. Because he's such a slimeball though the only way to get to the bottom, the real evidence (which he's deleted, sheltered, hidden, lied about and claimed "Executive Privilege" in order to squelch) is through impeachment. If he's got nothing to hide let him sit through the proceedings and prove himself the honorable man. I personally will write a letter of apology to him and all his minions if he doesn't prove to be the scumbag I am certain he is.

ahahahaha his name got censored.

Well played Plime. Well Played.

Wow... the themepic proves once and for all the existance of Rule 34.

Boulder is like granola...

Full of nuts and flakes. :)

First, that oath says nothing about lying. So if the charge is that he's lied to the American people, there is nothing in that oath that swears he won't do it. Sounds strange perhaps, but "dems da' rules."

Next, you cannot use a court proceeding or an impeachment like a fishing expedition. That is a violation of the law.

You cannot not say, "We believe you did something, we don't have any specifics or concrete evidence to show a judge, but we want to put you through a trial anyway." That would be considered gross misconduct, and thrown out by a judge.

There just isn't the legal background needed to move forward with any kind of substantial charges. Do you really think if there were, that a member of congress wouldn't have already tried it? Come on! The Democrats from the very blue states would have become heroes, if they could have been the ones behind an impeachment process! But there isn't the stuff needed, that's why nothing has been brought.

Boulder officials know that... and they know that they can't do a darn thing about it. But it does score them some points amongst the "Impeachment Crowd," so it's a win-win. They get more fans who think they're going to do something (even though they're not)... and they don't actually have to do anything but make a few speeches. A win-win strategy... if not a little disingenuous.

If rule 34 is "Sometimes you wish you could downvote the themepic alone" or "you can find anything at all on the internet"

then yes, yes it does.

Rule 34 is commonly known as 'If it exists, there is porn of it. No exceptions.'
In reality, it's more like 'if it will rape your childhood and scar you for life, there is porn of it. No exceptions.'

Think I'm bluffing? Call my bluff.
(Link not for the faint of heart)

NSFW



that's the funniest thing I've seen today. Yay sexual high energy particle physics puns.

He violated the constitution. That's all. Period. That's enough, that's more than enough, that's the most heinous thing a President can do and he did it. That's it. That's all that's needed, nothing else can sustain your argument. It's done. He did it. Defenseless.
Don't need to, he's violated the constitution, all other crimes that come out as a result are not a "fishing expedition" they're "probable cause" and thus completely legal. I could cite, but it's bedtime.
See above. We already know he violated the Constitution. Just because you want to continue to believe otherwise doesn't mean it didn't happen.
While you're not alone in this misjudgment, you're certainly in the minority and shrinking.
Au contraire, the tide, it turns. I think people are starting to come out of the coma...well, most of them, present company excepted, of course. The grounds for impeachment have been around for quite some time, the sentiment for impeachment gets stronger every day, as people start to shake off the "mind f**k" they've been under for ages. (Again, most of them). There is still the sentiment that impeachment would do more to fracture this country but I do believe in what McGovern said, that it could actually bring this country together (except for the few die hards).

Let me ask you a hypothetical.

If you happened upon a box in some secret place and in that box you found that what you had been led to believe was nothing but a pack of lies, and all along you'd been a staunch defender of the liar, what would you do? This is a hypothetical I pose directly to you. If you expose the liar you look like a fool and worse, it destroys the fabric of what you believed in, you have to rebuild all of that, if you can since your trust is demolished. But if you exposed it, millions of suffering people would be freed from a grip of fear and anguish. What would you do?

Now what if you opened that box and it turned out to prove everything you believed in was fact? That it proved what you stood for was true and honest and right. That it was the best thing to do and if you expose that you also release the anguish and fear of millions and at the same time you quelch the nay-sayers, the opponents, the renegade?

I want the truth. I don't want subjectives and perhaps-es and we-can-only-hopes. I want the truth. And in the spirit of everything this country stands for, you should too.

Not to ruffle the feathers of the patriot eagles on here, but impeachment would be a much more noble end to his political career than he might deserve. I see no reason why he should not be tried as a war criminal. I am not debating the effectiveness of the UN, or the actions of GW, I am simply stating that a member country did not follow the policies and procedures that it had agreed to. If America no longer believes in the value of the UN, perhaps they should start their own international organization that takes action instead of talks about an issue for years as people perish. I see so much going on in America under the Bush administration that devalues what the nation stands for (at least under the vision of the fathers of independence) and I hope a stronger leader replaces him that brings back freedom and democracy as principals instead of ideals.

I side with ImWithBlue, although I would like to commend you both for having an actual civilized discussion without resulting to name calling and insults, while both using facts and evidence.
(Not sarcasm...yall rock)

Also, can the Boulder people not wait a coupla months? I mean, it's almost over, guys.

Violated the constitution how? What part of the constitution was violated?

Well, then why hasn’t he been charged yet? We’ve only got until November, and then it’s all more or less moot. How much longer are people going to wait?

Again, if what you say is true, what are they waiting for? His approval rating is lower than ever, so what’s the hold up? And if the fast majority think impeachment is the right thing, then why shouldn’t the move ahead with it. The answer is, of course, they don’t have the legal footing to do so… and losing such a high profile impeachment hearing would be disastrous! Would make them look like fools, and Bush untouchable. That’s a lose-lose… so nobody (who can actually be held accountable) is going to risk it.


Look, you’re misunderstanding my argument here. I’m all for the truth… and if there is new truth to be had, bring it on. However, that’s not what we’re arguing about here. We’re discussing the legal ability to impeach the current President.

I’ll pose my own hypothetical:
I’m your neighbor... living next to you in house, in a nice neighborhood. We get to talking one day, and you say, “I hate all these drug laws. I think we should be able to do whatever we want in our own homes.” I vigorously disagree.

Now, a few days later, you’re sitting in your home, when you hear a knock on the door. It’s the police. They want to search your home for drugs, and drug paraphernalia. When you ask, “Why?” they tell you it’s because I called and said I thought you might be doing drugs, distributing drugs, or manufacturing drugs in your home… I have no evidence, but I know how you feel about drugs, so I called the police.

You say tell the police that they have no evidence, and you’re not going to let them into your home. And they tell you, (here’s the punch-line) “If you have nothing to hide, let them look around. If they don’t find anything, fine… they’ll go away. But at least then we’ll know the truth.”

How do you feel then?

You’re essentially making an argument analogous to the argument for wiretapping… if you’ve got nothing to hide, what’s the problem? An argument you yourself has argued against on this website!

I’d love the truth… and more importantly, I’d love for people to believe the truth. But I don’t believe that would happen either way. There’s a lot of news that comes out of Iraq… some supports one way of thinking, some supports the other way of thinking. And both get ignored by the people who’ve already made up their minds.

Some would argue that this is, in fact, what Bush should be charged for (though not impeached). A violation of the Fourth Ammendment. If you would really like to learn about this topic and are not afraid of a long Wikipedia entry (remember, just because it is on Wikipedia doesn't always make something true) then I highly recommend the following:

He can be impeached and here is why:

As to his crimes, there is probable cause and that is all that is needed for a thorough investigation, which is essentially what an impeachment is.

Here is a clickable list with reference sources. I don't for an instant think you'll read it or agree with it if you do. You've dug your heels in and convinced yourself.

And when he is impeached is irrelevant, if he's done wrong he should pay for it.

I looked at the list... and aside from mentioning the way he combs his hair, that it's raining today, and that time I stubbed my toe... it's named pretty much everything he's done in the past 7 or so years as an "impeachable offense."

Then it references Ramsey Clark! HA! A man who has represented Nazis, the PLO, Slobodan Milosevic, and Saddam Hussein. The guy is powerfully anti-American, and isn't really known for winning his cases... just for taking them. Hardly someone I’d want supporting my cause.

But anyway, I'm curious about something. You say that "my heels are dug in" and "I've convinced myself." Is that not the pot calling the kettle black?

There are few people on this website who've made up their mind regarding the Bush Administration and the War in Iraq, more than you. If it's good news... you're nowhere to be found. If it's bad news… you’re singing in the chorus. Face it, you've committed yourself to everything bad about this administration and their actions... and there is nothing... NOTHING... could possibly sway you from that.

I guess I'm suborn, in that I keep coming back, and debating you on these topics. You very rarely actually answer or acknowledge the points I make... just move on back to another topic. I know you're not going to change your mind, and I doubt you actually read or consider the points I make. But that’s to be expected.

I just don't understand why you attempt to make it sound like I'm some sort of freak because I don't agree with you. Aren't we all entitled to our own opinions? And what position are you in to accuse anyone else of "not reading" or "not listening?"

Well... whatever. I think we've exhausted this particular topic. Onto the next one.