Conservative Tough Talk on Impeachment

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul 23 2007, 03:32 PM) [snapback]483789[/snapback]</div>

I just did.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jul 23 2007, 03:47 PM) [snapback]483795[/snapback]</div>

I was referring to Bill Clinton's Impeachment and disbarment.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul , 03:54 PM)</div>

Clinton was impeached and then acquitted of the charges. That means NOT CONVICTED of the charges. Why is that so hard for you people to understand? Impeachment does NOT imply conviction. Look it up.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul 23 2007, 05:54 PM) [snapback]483800[/snapback]</div>

It is a bit odd, how Wildkow is confused by something so straightforward.

 

OK, all of you who say that Bill Clinton wasn't impeached put your money where your mouth is, I'll cover all bets.

Wildkow

 

wildkow, don't you realize everyone's saying he was impeached but not convicted? We're recognizing the difference between the two, can't you?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jul 21 2007, 12:59 PM) [snapback]482835[/snapback]</div>

This attitude is being created and fed by nearly all politicians -- its actually very dangerous for our political system in which fellow citizens who disagree are labeled as having "no honor, dignity, winning at any expense." That is an example of extreme rhetoric from the left while the extreme right has the whole, you're not patriotic if you question the reasons we went to war, ect.

In my humble opinion, there needs to be a revolt by the moderate people (most people) in this country against the extremes of both parties if we're going to repair this deep division that has been fostered in this country.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Washington1788 @ Jul 24 2007, 09:05 AM) [snapback]484097[/snapback]</div>

You won't get many here supporting a revolt by the middle. Good number of the posters here fall into the extreme left category.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Jul 24 2007, 09:12 AM) [snapback]484099[/snapback]</div>

Given the nature of the board, a Prius chat forum, where many people have bought their car for eco-friendly reasons -- to me it stands to reason folks like that are going to lean more left -- however, that does not mean they are extreme ( at least not a majority ). Many of the people I've interacted with on here are fairly reasonable and this is coming from somone who takes the position that global warming is not some global catastrophy or is a problem created by humans.

The important thing is people from any political leaning can have a discussion without questioning each other's motives and just have a discussion like rational adults.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Washington1788 @ Jul 24 2007, 09:19 AM) [snapback]484104[/snapback]</div>

I didn't say there was a majority here that is extreme. But there are a good number that fall into the category of the unhinged left, where everything they think is wrong with the world is Bush's/Cheney's/Republican/the Supreme Court's fault as if it was all fine before Bush came into office and now they are all conspiring together to mess things up for them. Bush is simultaneously dumber than a chimp and an evil genius smart enough to take over all branch’s of government in America, or is it Cheney telling him what to do? I don’t know, I can’t keep this story straight. Guess I’m not smart enough. <_<

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Jul , 09:01 AM)</div>

I'll try to straighten it out for you. I don't think any of us lefties think that Bush is smarter than a door knob. Or maybe you can straighten me out and show me where anybody here accused Bush of being smart? :blink:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Jul 24 2007, 11:22 AM) [snapback]484163[/snapback]</div>

It has been my understanding that people who hold the opinion that Bush is "dumb" believe he is merely a figure head for the sinister organization behind him of Cheney and "neo-cons." People who hold that opinion generally believe that the organization behind him is responsible for many bad things that have happened. It seems they certainly do not attribute any kind of intellegence to Bush -- so he's right in that I don't think anyone of that view point has accused Bush of being "smart."

 

Why is kow suddenly so silent?

 

I do understand the difference between impeachment and conviction upon the impeachment articles. Please reread my posts above. That’s why I said that Fein’s evidence â€ended in a conviction of Clinton, disbarment and impeachment.†I used a comma instead of the word “and†because two “and’s†in one sentence sounded awkward to me. There maybe a better way to have said it but that is water under the bridge at this point. I believe that the gist of my thoughts is plain enough or at least plain enough to have asked for clarification instead of a knee-jerk accusation of lying. Nowhere did I argued or stated that he was convicted of the impeachment articles. In fact I pointed out the difference between the two in several of my posts. That being said some of the clamor from this group seems to be trying awfully hard to lay aside the fact of impeachment by saying he was not convicted. His conviction on the Articles of Impeachment is beside the point he was impeached by the House of Representatives and that as they say is history.

In addition he was convicted, found guilty, sanctioned, or whatever you want to call it of both perjury and obstruction of justice resulting in his disbarment from both the State Bar of Arkansas and from the Supreme Court of the United States. They don’t take these types of actions on a whim so obviously there was enough evidence and it was of such quality to support the finding of guilt. Yes Clinton did voluntarily surrender his license but that was to avoid the embarrassment of becoming the first President in the history of the United States to be disbarred. I believe Nixon was the first but avoided the same problem by also surrendering his license before proceedings started IIRC. In the case of the Arkansas Bar they graciously accepted the voluntary surrender of his license to save the trouble and expense of a trial/court action. The SCOTUS gave him 40 days to appeal the ruling but since they had him dead to rights he did not appeal and was therefore disbarred from the Supreme Court. At this point in time I believe he can practice law in the state of Arkansas but not in the Supreme Court.

Therefore the evidence of perjury and obstruction of justice was sufficient for disbarment and impeachment. Spin it any way you want he was impeached and he was disbarred.

I don’t take kindly to being called a liar in a public forum. Etawful owes me an apology or if he/she hasn’t the class or character at the very least a retraction. I will pursue this with the mod’s if it is not forthcoming.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul 25 2007, 09:52 AM) [snapback]484627[/snapback]</div>

Your points above are valid and well-stated. However, if you had stated it this way after your admittedly awkward post then things wouldn't have gotten to this point. People read your post and thought it was saying (or implying) that Clinton was convicted after he was impeached. Your counters to their post have all had to do with Clinton's impeachment, not the disbarment or anything else. Therefore, it looked like you were trying to defend your remarks regarding the impeachment rather than clarify a misunderstanding.

You thought you were being clear, others thought otherwise. You seem to be blaming them for not understanding you when it's your job to make sure they do. The reactions were knee-jerk, yes. But you did nothing to clarify things. Instead you threw fuel on the fire.

By the way, you implied that other people were lying when you posted the following:<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul 24 2007, 07:08 AM) [snapback]484053[/snapback]</div>

I say apologies are due all around.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul 25 2007, 05:52 AM) [snapback]484627[/snapback]</div>

W: The mods are not your mommy. Their job is thankless enough without being whined to, and especially by YOU, who has impinged the character of many a post. If I were the mod to whom you pursued your 'problem' I'd slap you down, make you sit in the corner for a week and tell you to get a backbone. The mods are not your personal goon squad.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Washington1788 @ Jul 24 2007, 01:39 PM) [snapback]484236[/snapback]</div>

I find it hard to believe they really think that. Like a bad movie plot? Does it make sense that they could be so good as to create this giant conspiracy and yet have it looks so bad? And the press is all in on it too? How come we haven’t seen the headline in the NY Times “Bush is puppet controlled by Cheney NEO-Con. Org.†Do they believe that?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul , 06:52 AM)</div>

I think you're still not getting it. Clinton was not convicted of anything. That's what we're arguing about, not the impeachment.

That's just not true. Several of us have wholeheartedly agreed about the impeachment. We object to your claim that he was convicted.

And yet after having been corrected on your use of the word "convicted", you continue to use it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Jul 25 2007, 10:40 AM) [snapback]484768[/snapback]</div>

What happened then that resulted in the loss of his license to practice law?

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul 25 2007, 03:13 PM) [snapback]484906[/snapback]</div>

Clinton voluntarily gave up his license in Arkansas as part of an agreement to end the 7 year Whitewater investigation.