The "you's" are the judiciary committee....
Posted By: Observer on 2007-12-20
In Reply to: Really now? - piglet
never meant to imply anyone else. And I frankly don't care how many are exposed, be they Republican, Democrat or polka-dotted. What I think would happen is that there would be a lot of people exposed, a lot of ties between people that might shock people, and that it will never get to the impeachment process. Ever think that it might be to the advantage of professional politicians tha America stays split? The end result, "we the people" will be more disgusted with politics than ever and with both parties. Of course there will still be the hard-liner tunnel-visioned on both sides who won't believe what comes out anyway if it does not fall in their belief system that the Democratic party (or the Republican party) can do no wrong. Some things never change. Sigh.
And there is that segment of the population, the professional politicians, who who don't really believe anything other than what it takes to advance their power base. As I have said ad nauseam, I only register as a Republican in primary years because I HAVE to in order to vote in them. Otherwise, independent because neither of the major parties interest me in the least and it is getting worse by the day.
And no, I don't necessarily think more republicans would come home to roost than democrats in republican administration. Especially since this republican administration kept over so many from the Clinton administration (so much for trying to bipartisan and reach across the aisle. He kept more people over from the last admin in his first term, I think, than any other Pres has. Most of them clean house when they come in). And not much of that went well (Armitage, Tenet, and how many others?). I think anyone honest can say a lot of the problems we face today were in part brought about by those very folks. They at the very least had both hands in it.
And when I said I wanted to know the truth...I meant that. I said the same thing during the Clinton impeachment...and everyone who watched any of that knows the man is guilty of both perjury and obstruction, no matter what he was lying under oath ABOUT, And THAT congressional montage let him walk. So I don't have faith, personally, in ANY professional politician. It is all about power and keeping it.
However, if all this ranting and raving and posturing does inadvertently prove that both parties were involved perhaps this two-party system we have basically been forced into will finally get shaken up enough to listen to "we the people" because they have not in a long time.
Piglet, I think this is a political exercise and I think those starting it have no interest in justice, just like those who started against Clinton had no interest in justice. If they had, they would have convicted him. It was an exercise, this is an exercise. But it has gotten so hatefully, bittery partisan that maybe some of them may not see that they perhaps would be hammering nails into their own political coffins (save Pelosi and a few others who are trying to keep it from happening). And by they, I mean any and all of the resident politicians in DC.
So I say let them have at it. And when the dust settles, we might actually have enough disgusted rank and file in America that who might get elected at that point? Ron Paul? I am at the point now where the whole thing is just ridiculous.
Pelosi is using her power the only way she knows how...in an effort to KEEP it. That is what they are ALL about. If she cared about the truth or justice and really felt in her heart of hearts that anyone in the administration was guilty of impeachable offenses she SHOULD go forward. The fact that she does not, and even tries to keep her fellow Dems from going forward, tells me all I need to know.
That being said...I have not had faith in much of any congressional montage period since Clinton walked and not only walked, continued as President. And even if WE the people push for it, we are not going to see anything done unless the professional politicians weigh the pro's and con's and if they think it will help insure winning the White House, they will go forward. If they think it will not, or will in any way hinder that goal, they won't. That is, sadly, the bottom line and because of that, we may never know the truth. It is in their best interest to just have the innuendo out there...because seeking the truth sometimes finds it, and that might not be the most opportune thing for getting the White House back. Politics.
And in the end...I am wondering if THAT matters, because we knew the truth about Bill Clinton and it didn't matter..he still was not convicted though they all knew he was guilty. Not of multiple affairs, against which there is no law, but lying under oath before a federal grand jury. There is no question he did it, we all saw him do it on national television. So it is not a question of guilt. The perjury automatically proved the obstruction count, he lied to keep from being caught, thereby obstructing "justice." And he not only walked on perjury and obstruction, he remained President. The Arkansas Bar Association knew he was guilty...said so and disbarred him. I believe that soured me (not because it was Bill Clinton...sheesh...but because the law should be applied equally to ALL and certainly that should include the President of the United States no matter what party he is a member of). And those same people who bemoan Clinton being impeached are thirsting for impeachment of someone else for the SAME crime. I don't understand that. I do not understand the incapability of some to grasp the concept of equality under the law. I thought that was a founding concept of America. Equal application of the law to all, no matter how high up the chain it goes. Guess that is just asking too much of people, to put down partisan politics and just look at the facts, guilty or not guilty. Didn't happen with Clinton. I don't have much faith that it will happen this time either, though the same people who want to excuse Clinton want to fry Cheney and use that to jump start frying Bush. They really don't care if it is true or not. Sigh. Almost laughable.
And I think that the powers that be in Washington just don't want us to know everything that would come out in impeachment hearings. Which are televised, so it would be HARD, HARD, HARD to spin. And the American people, I believe, are in a place where certain kinds of information would have very long-reaching effects. because I think there are more people toward the middle of the spectrum that the hard right or hard left.
So, I still say bring it on, have the hearings if they think they have the goods, and let it all come out. If the evidence points to guilt of Cheney, them impeach him, and if it is proven he is guilty, then remove him from office. And if others are in the process found to have committed crimes, then prosecute them and throw them in the cell next to Libby. Be they Dem, Repub, or polka-dotted. Let's try to get it right this time. Put the criminals in jail, not back in the White House. We can't go back and put Clinton in jail where he belongs, but we can get it right this time (yeah right, like that will happen, but one can hope).
If I sound disgusted, I am. As disgusted as kam but in a totally different way.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
The original post was about the judiciary...
committee wanting to talk to Scott McClellan about the Plame case and whether or not perjury or obstruction of justice happened. There is all kind of crap rolling around out there, but what the judiciary committee is looking at that had everyone so excited is about the Plame case and nothing else. THAT was my point and that is what the thread was about.
You are the one who made the innocent until proven guilty comment. And now you have to backpedal because you don't actually believe nor adhere to what you yourself posted. That is the truth, and if that is nasty, so be it.
Well, I don't know how you define morality,piglet. You will have to tell me. Being for the law and innocent until proven guilty for only people who espouse your beliefs...in my book that does not equal particularly high moral values. My opinion, just as it is yours to call me nasty. As if you have never been nasty. But I digress.
And like I said...over and over again. IF and when either of them is impeached, and if they are proven guilty, I will be the first to say they should be removed from office...as I have said over and over today. We all know because we witnessed it that Clinton did the crime. Just because the Congress did not have the guts to convict does not make him any less guilty. If they impeach Cheney and I see evidence that convinces me he is guilty I will say so whether or not Congress has the guts to. Again...difference betweenou and me.
They can list charge after charge after charge. Until they prove it, they are innocent, according to your own post (which you don't believe across the board, but I do).
So we will wait and see. And I still say that the reason Pelosi and the hierarchy are against is because they don't want to open Pandora's box. At that point they will not be able to control what comes out. Give me another good reason why, if she really felt like they were guilty, she would not go forward with impeachment.
Mr. Bugliosi went before the house judiciary...
committee when they discussed impeachment, and they were not impressed enough, even with a Democratic majority, to start impeachment proceedings. What I read about that tells me all I need to know. How a seemingly rational human being can think that one man could so manipulate not only this government but foreign governments as well who said the intelligence was real, and ignore the fact that the Clinton Administration was talking regime change in Iraq, even authored the Iraqi Liberation Act...and still think that Bush all alone and by himself lied to the world (these same people who call him a bumbling ignoramus today) and made them all believe it...you can honestly tell me that he was intelligent enough to pull off that kind of hoax with all the checks and balances of this government and in the world...and you really believe that? It is not that I am a Bush fan...because he has done a lot of things I certainly don't agree with. But to try to blame the Iraq war on one man...and lay absolutely NO blame at the feet of the intelligence agencies, the head of the CIA that he inherited from Clinton, or at Congress for voting for it...makes absolutely no sense to me, and I would be saying the same thing if it were a Dem president people were trying to railroad.
Okay, I won't say anything about someone wanting to sell books, since I have not read Bugliosi's. However, as far as brisk sales, I believe "Obama Nation" went straight to #1 on the New York Times best seller list and may still be there. Have you read that one? And "The Case Against Barack Obama" debuted at #5. Just in case you are interested. I am about halfway through that one, and I am putting it to the test...I am independently verifying every point made (amazing what you can find in public record on the internet). Maybe I am not the only one that needs to move out of my "comfort zone" maybe? Perhaps you should too. You might be surprised at what you find, to coin your words.
Frankly, I am not that interested in Bush. He is on his way out. Like I said...I have several problems with him. But, as much as many people would like to, it is just not logical to blame him alone for the war in Iraq. Any more than it would be to blame Obama if he were in the same set of circumstances, or anyone else. I believed Clinton when he said Iraq had WMD and tortured and killed his own people, and I believed Bush when HE said the same thing.
Intelligence Committee?
A congressional delegation made what was supposed to be a top secret trip to Iraq this week. A few media outlets, including Congressional Quarterly, learned about it but agreed not to disclose anything until the delegation had left Iraq.
So what did Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Michigan do? By the way, Hoekstra is a former chairman of the Intelligence Committee and is still a ranking member. Hoekstra BLOGGED about the trip on his Twitter page and included details about their itinerary in updates posted every few hours.
In a related note, a recent debate between candidates for Republican National Committee chair featured an argument over who had more friends on Facebook. It's good to see the Republican party is embracing new technology.
Pubs must be in distraction committee.
nm
The Central Committee will be informing
In the meantime:
1. On Monday of next week, you will present yourself to your neighborhood Communal Health Station to be inspected for head lice.
2. On Tuesday of next week, you will present yourself to your neighborhood Clothing Inspection Station where we will check to make sure you are wearing cotton underwear.
3. The Brand Control Committee will visit your residence on Wednesday of next week to ensure that you are purchasing only products from companies that donate to the Party.
4. You will confine yourself to the burning of one 25-watt electric light bulb per household.
5. Luxury items such as curling irons are now forbidden. If you want to curl your hair, just stay tuned for what we do next!
Thus speaketh the tiny mind committee.
Are you retarded or just immature?
Her'es a buntch of othur typeoes you kin crect to get her rockx off.
You're a troll. Go away.
Where were you when Franks and Dodds and the dem controlled finance committee
the financial crisis in its wake?
I don't know about "you all" but
I don't judge people by what they wear. I don't shop at Neiman or Saks and I'm not overly impressed by those who do. I wouldn't care if she did her shopping at Good Will if I thought she had enough brains to turn this country around. With her foreign policy knowledge being that Russia flies over Alaska and she can see Russia from her front porch on a clear day, The odds are highly in favor of her running this country at some point if McCain is elected.
"You better" ....
:)
"you're" oops.
i hate spelling errors! :)
It should be "you're welcome" not "your welcome"
oh my
Oh, he knows. "You elect me", I will find
nm
"You're answer"
If you don't want discussion and/or argument, don't post. Simple as that. If I know something related to someone's post, I'm gonna post a reply.
And you never argue on this forum, do you?
I am not one of what you call "you people."
I didn't state any number or any guesstimate of how many people attended tea parties. I can speak for my town, which is a small town, and there were about 300 people at our court house yesterday.
Final counts aren't in from some of the larger cities, but even that won't be a fair representation of the numbers because of small towns like mine that might not be added in the mix - those numbers do add up.
All I was wondering from you is why you chose to quote a Canadian article - you answered that it was because it would be an unbiased source. However, it would be a biased source because they would really have no first-hand knowledge of how many parties there were, where they were, how many people attened, etc.
Personally, I attended not because I'm a conservative or republican or anything like that. And it wasn't a front for some big corporation so the rich could keep their taxes low (and I'm far from being rich!) I attended because I don't think Congress is doing a very good job spending my money. When people like Chuck Schumer stand up there and say things like the American people don't care about the pork, that's when I get upset. And for them to get all up in arms about the AIG bonuses, only to find out it was all right there in black and white in the stimulus package, but none of them even bothered to read it, that's when I get upset! If you and I did something like that in our jobs, we'd be fired on the spot!
This sort of thing should have happened years ago because the spending in DC has been out of control, even when the republicans were in charge (that's when I started voting democrat for a while.)It just makes my blood boil to hear the republicans in DC spout off about all the spending the democrats are doing - why weren't they doing anything about it 8 or 10 years ago? But it makes me madder still to hear them all (republicans and democrats) DEFEND spending all this money now and then leaving our children to have to pay for it later.
I just don't think it's right for the government to think that it can live by one set of rules while the rest of us have to live by another.
Okay, enough of a book, just needed to get that off my chest.
I am not one of what you call "you people."
I didn't state any number or any guesstimate of how many people attended tea parties. I can speak for my town, which is a small town, and there were about 300 people at our court house yesterday.
Final counts aren't in from some of the larger cities, but even that won't be a fair representation of the numbers because of small towns like mine that might not be added in the mix - those numbers do add up.
All I was wondering from you is why you chose to quote a Canadian article - you answered that it was because it would be an unbiased source. However, it would be a biased source because they would really have no first-hand knowledge of how many parties there were, where they were, how many people attened, etc.
Personally, I attended not because I'm a conservative or republican or anything like that. And it wasn't a front for some big corporation so the rich could keep their taxes low (and I'm far from being rich!) I attended because I don't think Congress is doing a very good job spending my money. When people like Chuck Schumer stand up there and say things like the American people don't care about the pork, that's when I get upset. And for them to get all up in arms about the AIG bonuses, only to find out it was all right there in black and white in the stimulus package, but none of them even bothered to read it, that's when I get upset! If you and I did something like that in our jobs, we'd be fired on the spot!
This sort of thing should have happened years ago because the spending in DC has been out of control, even when the republicans were in charge (that's when I started voting democrat for a while.)It just makes my blood boil to hear the republicans in DC spout off about all the spending the democrats are doing - why weren't they doing anything about it 8 or 10 years ago? But it makes me madder still to hear them all (republicans and democrats) DEFEND spending all this money now and then leaving our children to have to pay for it later.
I just don't think it's right for the government to think that it can live by one set of rules while the rest of us have to live by another.
Okay, enough of a book, just needed to get that off my chest.
Meant like "YOU GOT BEHIND BUSH"
nm
Olbermann: "You owe this country an apology." sm
Another great special comment from Keith Olbermann.
"You're not forced to read this" is what I was
nm
What part of "you don't have a choice" don't you understand
"Obama will call on citzens of all ages to serve America" My God!!!! Don't you hear this. Don't you question this. Don't you know what the germans when through with Hitler????
Forced is forced. You can put any fancy name on it you want. It is still the same as military service. Once in you don't have a choice of what you do. I was in the military, I lived with a german couple who went through the holocaust and heard many stories. I KNOW the military. What starts out as civil service turns into military service. Heck call it the country club service if it makes you feel more important than the military. The truth is this is forced and you don't have a choice. This is how the Hitler youth started (by feeling more important than those who weren't in the Hitler youth). They then went on to be the SS and finally the Gestapo. Sure the Hitler youth felt very "patriotic" and wanted to serve the Fuhrer. They were made to feel privilaged and would receive things (i.e. tuition to college, etc). It later turned out to be a much different story and unfortunately they had no choice. You cannot just leave whenever you want to. I don't want to see my nieces and nephews have to go through that. I blame all who voted for the O for that.
P.S. - NOT voluntary! What part are you not understanding. Mandatory and forced do not mean you have a choice. Just wait til the uniforms come. It's going to be slow but when it happens maybe you'll remember what I said. But then again the parents of the Hitler youth's wanted their children to enter the Hitler youth so they too would feel privaleged and patriotic. I just can't believe people are buying into it without a second question. That is what is so "disgusting" about that!!!!
who are "you guys". I'm a democrat and ashamed of
xx
Who are "you guys">>>>I couldn't care less about Ewards
00
"She" made it easy for "you" to lose control of yourself? sm
and end up writing that trash you wrote?
Only you are responsible for how low you sink. Anyone can see that.
|
