|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
nharmon
|
|
response 96 of 404:
| 
Dec 30 00:46 UTC 2005 |
As a conservative, I share a lot of you people's disgust in the lack of
prying on the congress's part in regards to Bush's actions. I think that
a GOP-majority congress impeaching a sitting republican president would
show a hell of a lot of integrity and would do well to restore the
world's opinion of the United States.
|
twenex
|
|
response 97 of 404:
|
Dec 30 00:55 UTC 2005 |
Re: #92. Disgusting, but hardly unexpected. Remember the sort we're dealing
with here.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 98 of 404:
|
Dec 30 01:36 UTC 2005 |
resp:93 - I think where the disconnect comes in is the argument over
whether it was anyone's business in the first place. Many feel that it
was not, and don't get over to the business of lawbreaking.
|
dpfitzen
|
|
response 99 of 404:
|
Dec 30 02:55 UTC 2005 |
R94 Yes the topic of discussion started out much different than it ended up
however starting about 80 or so you will read my reply applied to the current
discussion . Who lied and why. Which made me think of the article in the
Chicago Tribune which I thought some would find interesting. You are right
it was also discussed on Fox tonight. It is odd how the discussions change
the further they go isn't it?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 100 of 404:
|
Dec 30 04:11 UTC 2005 |
Not really. This item started about impeaching Bush. Naturally, the Clinton
impeachment entered the discussion. What was "unnatural" was your trying to
confuse the issue by using Fox/GOP talking points about Iraq in a discussion
where that was not the focus. Good luck distracting your neighbors from the
real issue, though.
|
tod
|
|
response 101 of 404:
|
Dec 30 05:10 UTC 2005 |
Peach and Bush are a hot topic this week. *pause for canned laughter*
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 102 of 404:
|
Dec 30 06:01 UTC 2005 |
*hands tod a can opener*
|
tod
|
|
response 103 of 404:
|
Dec 30 06:27 UTC 2005 |
Mine's dented!
|
tsty
|
|
response 104 of 404:
|
Dec 30 06:34 UTC 2005 |
.. tha;s why you were given a new one ....
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 105 of 404:
|
Dec 30 08:36 UTC 2005 |
Your canned laughter is dented? That's not funny.
|
jep
|
|
response 106 of 404:
|
Dec 30 13:30 UTC 2005 |
re resp:92: Did you miss the part where I said I think Bush should be
impeached? Is that why you call my comments "partisan"?
Or maybe it's because I say Clinton's lies to the country were to
protect himself from his personal indiscretions, but Bush's may
possibly have been because he thinks he is benefitting the country.
(Though, as I added, I don't believe that myself.)
Sigh. I would have thought you of all people on Grex would be able to
catch the gist of comments. I am surprised you need a reminder summary
to help you to not reverse the intent of everything I've said.
It is true that I am a conservative voter. I'm strongly against
abortion. I prefer low taxes to big public projects such as free
national health coverage. I like the two serious Supreme Court
nominees that Bush has named. I even think ANWR should be open for oil
production. I despise the ACLU.
If I'd never posted in this item, or discussed any of my views about
Bush over the last three years, you could have reasonably concluded I'm
pretty partisan in favor of the Republican Party and the current
administration. Given what I've said here, writing at some length,
which I think has been pretty hard on Bush (whom I voted against in
2004, did you know that? I voted for Kerry), I really don't think I
fit the mold you put me in.
|
richard
|
|
response 107 of 404:
|
Dec 30 15:43 UTC 2005 |
re #106 jep, why do you despise the ACLU? The ACLU only exists to
protect your constitutional rights. The ACLU's role is not political,
it does not endorse candidates. It has represented many conservatives,
such as Rush Limbaugh and the KKK. I cant understand why you'd despise
them unless you've been watching too much Fox News Channel.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 108 of 404:
|
Dec 30 16:34 UTC 2005 |
The reason may be that jep thinks the Bill of Rights in the Constitution
is too liberal.
|
tod
|
|
response 109 of 404:
|
Dec 30 16:54 UTC 2005 |
re #107
You sound like a neocon when you ask someone a leading question about their
Freedom.
|
richard
|
|
response 110 of 404:
|
Dec 30 17:05 UTC 2005 |
Actually the one who needs to resign, or be fired, is attorney general
alberto gonzales, because he is the president's lawyer, and he advised
the president that he had the authority to break a federal law. If
Bush gets called into court over this, he'll just say he got bad advice
from his lawyers and he did. Gonzalez needs to go.
|
tod
|
|
response 111 of 404:
|
Dec 30 17:07 UTC 2005 |
The point you're missing is that the only authority likely to call a POTUS
into court is the attorney general. Think JFK and all the dirt people had
on him and you'll get the picture.
|
richard
|
|
response 112 of 404:
|
Dec 30 17:15 UTC 2005 |
re #111, not true, Nixon was in hot water during Watergate and so was
his attorney general. Thats why they appointed a Special Prosecutor,
and that is what is needed here. The Special Prosecutor can call the
POTUS into court in place of the Attorney General.
|
tod
|
|
response 113 of 404:
|
Dec 30 17:36 UTC 2005 |
And just who do you think would appoint a special prosecutor? The GOP run
legislature?
|
richard
|
|
response 114 of 404:
|
Dec 30 18:06 UTC 2005 |
well I think it is expired now, but in the 90's there was an
Independent Counsel Law that allowed for the judiciary to appoint a
Special Prosecutor, in times where it was not appropriate for the
attorney general to do so. Ken Starr was appointed by a three judge
panel as special prosecutor, NOT by the attorney general. But as I
said, I am not sure the Independent Counsel Law is still valid.
|
aruba
|
|
response 115 of 404:
|
Dec 30 18:07 UTC 2005 |
jep - I appreciate the courage it takes to take a stand which is not in
lock-step with your usual allies. I wish more people had that courage.
Richard - I wish you wouldn't assume that everyone is either with you on
everything, or else they're your enemy. That attitude isn't going to get us
anywhere.
|
richard
|
|
response 116 of 404:
|
Dec 30 18:13 UTC 2005 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 117 of 404:
|
Dec 30 18:15 UTC 2005 |
Aruba, why do you assume I have that attitude? I don't in fact, I am
just argumenative, I like to debate and I like to reiterate my
points. Don't read more intonation into my verbage than is actually
there. I am not critizing you or anyone else for your style, so why
not extend the same courtesy.
And in fact, since the ACLU's sole mission is to see to it that the
Bill of Rights is respected and enforced properly, and that the rights
of all american citizens are respected, I think that you should be as
appalled as rcurl and I that jep despises such a fine organization.
|
aruba
|
|
response 118 of 404:
|
Dec 30 18:25 UTC 2005 |
I'm a fan of the ACLU, and I disagree with jep on that. But I am not
appalled, because being appalled won't get me anywhere. I am interested in
seeing things get better, not in posturing. And the way to make things
better, it seems to me, is to convince enough people of conscience that
there are things more important than blind loyalty. Here you have an
example of that, in jep; and your reaction is to immediately start looking
for new things to fight about.
That's not what the country needs. We need to work on finding the things we
can (mostly) all agree on, and do something about them. For instance, I
think we mostly all agree that torture is bad, and we shouldn't be in that
business. Since we agree, we should do something about it.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 119 of 404:
|
Dec 30 18:25 UTC 2005 |
Actually, what I'm appalled at is that jep's passing mention of the ACLU
(in the context of mentioning that his views don't all fit into some neat
mold) has precipitated so much drift from the main topic.
|
edina
|
|
response 120 of 404:
|
Dec 30 18:30 UTC 2005 |
Re 118 Very well said.
|