|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:00 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:59 am
|
|
|
|
adabyron Kukushka Clinton was almost empeached because he cheated on his wife. Clinton was impeached. But yeah, it does show how screwy priorities are. sad No he wasn't, silly. He ended his term normally. But the empeachment trial lasted a very long time. Far longer than it should have for something that isn't illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:52 pm
|
|
|
|
Kukushka adabyron Kukushka Clinton was almost empeached because he cheated on his wife. Clinton was impeached. But yeah, it does show how screwy priorities are. sad No he wasn't, silly. He ended his term normally. But the empeachment trial lasted a very long time. Far longer than it should have for something that isn't illegal. He was impeached and acquitted, thus ending his term normally. The fact that there was an impeachment means he was impeached....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:05 pm
|
|
|
|
But you did say that Clinton was impeached, silly adabyron. Here's what you said:
adabyron Kukushka Clinton was almost empeached because he cheated on his wife. Clinton was impeached. But yeah, it does show how screwy priorities are. sad Politics is so confuzling! cry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:52 pm
|
|
|
|
adabyron Kukushka adabyron Kukushka Clinton was almost empeached because he cheated on his wife. Clinton was impeached. But yeah, it does show how screwy priorities are. sad No he wasn't, silly. He ended his term normally. But the empeachment trial lasted a very long time. Far longer than it should have for something that isn't illegal. He was impeached and acquitted, thus ending his term normally. The fact that there was an impeachment means he was impeached....
IIRC, impeachment isn't when you're given the boot - it's when the president, vice-president or a Senate member is put on trial.
Also, Clinton is impeached for having an affair, which is not federally illegal(it's illegal in North Dakota), yet Bush ADMITS to violating several amendments that cover the issue of fair trial, due process and punishment, and he gets NOTHING.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:21 pm
|
|
|
|
But you're so redundant, silly petit_diable!
petit_diable But you did say that Clinton was impeached, silly adabyron. Here's what you said: adabyron Kukushka Clinton was almost empeached because he cheated on his wife. Clinton was impeached. But yeah, it does show how screwy priorities are. sad Politics is so confuzling! cry Um... right. I know what I said. He was impeached. That's why I said it. 3nodding I even said it a second time.
I He was impeached and acquitted, thus ending his term normally. The fact that there was an impeachment means he was impeached.... So I'm not sure why you're pointing it out as if I'm going to be surprised. xd I'll even say it again, for good measure. Clinton was impeached!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:08 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:14 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:32 pm
|
|
|
|
adabyron He was impeached and acquitted, thus ending his term normally. The fact that there was an impeachment means he was impeached.... I'm pretty sure it was just an empeachment trial, but no actual verdict was given...
I could be wrong though...
Jesus, you Americans and your silly politics. Where I come from, if we don't like a leader, we just eat him. And his children, too, just to be sure. That was amended in after the second Bush came to power. We figured it would be best not to take risks.
Kabocha-chan My question is... Why does our government care more about someone's sexual habits than the rights of the rest of the country? Is it THAT important to oppress someone in the bedroom? (Kitchen... car.. wherever.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:35 pm
|
|
|
|
Kukushka adabyron He was impeached and acquitted, thus ending his term normally. The fact that there was an impeachment means he was impeached.... I'm pretty sure it was just an empeachment trial, but no actual verdict was given... There was a trial, which means he was impeached. He was acquitted, i.e. the verdict of not guilty was given.
For the record, he wasn't impeached for having sexual relations with someone other than his wife. He was impeached for lying.
the Senate's trail memorandum The President is charged in two Articles with: 1) Perjury and false and misleading testimony and statements under oath before a federal grand jury (Article I), and 2) engaging in a course of conduct or scheme to delay and obstruct justice (Article II). (It's worth posing the question why he would lie about it. That would certainly be relevant here.)
Kabocha-chan My question is... Why does our government care more about someone's sexual habits than the rights of the rest of the country? Is it THAT important to oppress someone in the bedroom? (Kitchen... car.. wherever.) It's supposed to keep our minds off of the bigger matters. We're nosy creatures. Give us a reason to look in our neighbor's windows, and maybe we won't notice what's going on the next block over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 8:04 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 8:05 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 8:22 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:39 pm
|
|
|
|
Talon-chan Clinton was not impeached because he had an affair. Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath about having an affair. While adultery is not a crime, purjury is. Bush has done a lot more than Clinton and it was much more serious than anything Clinton did... but Clinton did break the law and was put on trial for it.
And the Bush administration is also breaking the law - the Bill of Rights and Constitution are laws meant to restrict the power the government has. Bush, Cheney, and anyone else in the Bush administration responsible for what is going on should be put on trial for crimes against humanity, and the Bush administration should be removed from office.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:10 am
|
|
|
|
adabyron Seriously, though, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with what Bush has said under oath as opposed to... over oath? He's looked the camera in the eye and knowingly lied. He's made countless speeches to the US where he said things he knew to not be true. I don't know if these were under oath, but for a president to deliberatly lie to his people seems like it ought to be a crime, no?
Lord Setar should be put on trial for crimes against humanity Agreed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|