Bush Impeachment Calls Gather Momentum

[Oh Hamburgers!]

So you have no problem with clintons war on christians but have a problem with the war on islam. FYI were not killing christians over there in iraq.

Friend, killing is killing. An Islamic life is a life. In fact, considering how many here feel about muslims and heaven, each muslim we kill is another person going to hell. Wouldn't you rather have them alive so that we can show them the way of Jesus?

You are painting three incorrect pictures here. One, clinton did not have a "war on Christians", that's absurd. Second, the war in Iraq is not a "war on Islam". It is a war on a country that happens to be mostly Islamic. Third, I already said I care about the bombing Clinton advocated, but I would RATHER have that happening today than the military campaign our country is stuck in now.

Either way though, a Christian life isn't worth any more or less than an Islamic life, or any life for that matter, at least for a good general rule of thumb.

[apothanein kerdos]

I wouldn't say that Clinton's was a war on "Christians." Christians, true followers of Christ, do not slaughter innocent babies of any tribe or religion. The people Clinton bombed did such a thing, and instead abused the name of Christ to commit genocidal acts.

Regardless, I simply think it provides for instability to impeach, or seek to impeach, two president's in a row. The previous impeachment should not have occurred in my opinion...but to attempt to bring one about two times is a bit too much. Even if the instability is just a simulacrum, it does not matter - many simulacra have eventually been accepted as reality, and thus dictated how people acted.

[kat8585]

Simulacrum, simulacra???

[Oh Hamburgers!]

Regardless, I simply think it provides for instability to impeach, or seek to impeach, two president's in a row. The previous impeachment should not have occurred in my opinion...but to attempt to bring one about two times is a bit too much. Even if the instability is just a simulacrum, it does not matter - many simulacra have eventually been accepted as reality, and thus dictated how people acted.

I guess I agree with you here for the most part. For the stability of the nation, and for the nation's confidence in its leader, an impeachment call would just create unrest. At the same time I see the other side of the coin however. I mean, if Bush commited a crime, and *should* be impeached but isn't for the good of the nation, what does that say about our justice system? We are letting him off the hook because we feel there have been too many impeachments in the past? That would be like saying "I've already sentenced three people to jail today for the same crime you have commited, but because its been a lot for today, I'll just let you off the hook with a warning."

I guess it is tough to decide where you draw the line. I mean, if 5 presidents in a row get impeached, but for good reasons, should the sixth be "immune" to impeachement? Or would you just need an atrocity to impeach someone at that point?

The real issue I think this boils down to is our country has had some pretty lousy candidates across the board in the past few years. I know that being a president is not an easy job, but there are so many issues that our nation desires that are not being addressed. Frankly I am of the opinion that our entire governmental system needs a good spring cleaning; less business and corporate interests, less pork, less monetary waste and poor management of funds, and more structure and professionalism. I am of the firm opinion that if we could clean up the way our money was spent in our government, we could lower taxes AND supply more for our nation in terms of public funding. There is so much money swallowed up through pork barrel politics and government business deals that could be put to much better use in this country.

[Burning_Ember]

Bill Clinton cheated on his wife. He lied about it at first, but he came clean quickly, relatively speaking.

Newt Gingrich just came clean about cheating on his wife it in the last week or two. Come to think of it, I think the reason it came up was becaues he came clean after several years and ADMITTED it, rather than because of the evil liberals satanic news networks of which the former KGB and communist Korea have a fair sharehold of.

Now you'll probably look that up and say "Ember, thats not true." Thats because you looked up facts. Not to mention reality. And as the great conservative commentator Steven Colbert once said "Reality has a well known liberal bias."

The only reasons Bill Clinton gets a worse time is because he was in a higher position of power, he was under the spotlight (I mean FOX news even created that one show as a daily update on the scandal, but I mean that can't be indicative of bias ) and Gingrich wasn't. That doesn't make any of what Gingrich did any better.

Edited March 13, 2007 by Burning_Ember

[Axxman]

The real issue I think this boils down to is our country has had some pretty lousy candidates across the board in the past few years. I know that being a president is not an easy job, but there are so many issues that our nation desires that are not being addressed. Frankly I am of the opinion that our entire governmental system needs a good spring cleaning; less business and corporate interests, less pork, less monetary waste and poor management of funds, and more structure and professionalism. I am of the firm opinion that if we could clean up the way our money was spent in our government, we could lower taxes AND supply more for our nation in terms of public funding. There is so much money swallowed up through pork barrel politics and government business deals that could be put to much better use in this country.

Hey...I don't really have a problem with your approval of Clinton. Its an ideological preference. I think you give him kind of a pass...but you could definitely say the same thing to me about Bush (although I'm pretty tough on Bush in some areas.)

I read your above paragraph and had to pause because not only do I agree with you...but I believe that President Bush does too. I believe that President Bush has tried VERY earnestly to do the things you suggested in the above paragraph.

1. Less business and corporate interests... Bush paved the way for the Corporate Responsibility bill. This bill was designed to hold executives and directors accountable. To protect small investors, pension holders and workers. Exposing and punishing acts of corruption. Bush's 2001 tax cuts offered little for Big Business. Big companies were resigned to waiting longer for the concessions, such as a cut in capital gains tax and faster depreciation allowances.

2. Less pork, less monetary waste and poor management of funds... President Bush has repeatedly set caps on government spending. While the war has certainly not done us any financial favors, pork projects are way down. It has been a Bush mantra from day one that he wanted to reduce gov't spending by 5% each year. It has been a consistent part of his plan to lower the deficit. Problem is that congress hasn't agreed (on either side of the aisle), and spending has not gone down as far as Bush has proposed. In fact, each year Congress exceeds Bush's spending cap. Either way, pork spending is less than half what it was.

3. Lower taxes AND supply more for our nation in terms of public funding... This has been a Bush strong point. He has put through three huge tax cuts that puts more money in the pocket of the average American. He has had to fight democrats every sstep of the way. Then once they were passed he has had to fight to make them permanent, cuz the dems want them to be temporary. The jobless rate in at an all-time low. In January jobless claims were a measly 272,000. Economy.com say that can only mean that the labor market is expanding at a fast pace. Bush has increased public funding in many areas including a HUGE increase for public parks, faith based initiatives, medical services, and education. Although the media hates him because he has limited public funds for the media and PBS.

President Bush has made some errors (especially in how to win the war), and his social plans haven't always run to perfection, but you gotta remember that it isn't ONLY his responsibility to make things run right. If you have half of congress fighting to make you look bad...they can do that. I truly believe that Bush has had the right idea's in how to run this country...but with so much bias and partisanship...it will be difficult for ANY President in the future...especially if the "impeachment" virus catches on.

[apothanein kerdos]

Regardless, I simply think it provides for instability to impeach, or seek to impeach, two president's in a row. The previous impeachment should not have occurred in my opinion...but to attempt to bring one about two times is a bit too much. Even if the instability is just a simulacrum, it does not matter - many simulacra have eventually been accepted as reality, and thus dictated how people acted.

I guess I agree with you here for the most part. For the stability of the nation, and for the nation's confidence in its leader, an impeachment call would just create unrest. At the same time I see the other side of the coin however. I mean, if Bush commited a crime, and *should* be impeached but isn't for the good of the nation, what does that say about our justice system? We are letting him off the hook because we feel there have been too many impeachments in the past? That would be like saying "I've already sentenced three people to jail today for the same crime you have commited, but because its been a lot for today, I'll just let you off the hook with a warning."

I guess it is tough to decide where you draw the line. I mean, if 5 presidents in a row get impeached, but for good reasons, should the sixth be "immune" to impeachement? Or would you just need an atrocity to impeach someone at that point?

The real issue I think this boils down to is our country has had some pretty lousy candidates across the board in the past few years. I know that being a president is not an easy job, but there are so many issues that our nation desires that are not being addressed. Frankly I am of the opinion that our entire governmental system needs a good spring cleaning; less business and corporate interests, less pork, less monetary waste and poor management of funds, and more structure and professionalism. I am of the firm opinion that if we could clean up the way our money was spent in our government, we could lower taxes AND supply more for our nation in terms of public funding. There is so much money swallowed up through pork barrel politics and government business deals that could be put to much better use in this country.

Impeachment was originally intended for clear cut violations of the law...not obscure references. In other words, if Bush violated the law, he would have been impeached by now because it would have been so clear. Lying to the public, spying on the public, and things of this nature, while immoral are not violations of the law.

We end up running the risk of creating a sort of "Roman Empire" scenario where leaders are thrown off because they do something people don't like. Bush has made multiple people upset, but he hasn't done anything illegal, at least to the point of being impeached.

If we do end up with five presidents in a row that do something worthy of being impeached, there is no question they deserve it, then our system has broken down completely and we would find ourselves in some form of tyranny within twenty years.

[Eliyahuw]

So you have no problem with clintons war on christians but have a problem with the war on islam. FYI were not killing christians over there in iraq.

Friend, killing is killing. An Islamic life is a life. In fact, considering how many here feel about muslims and heaven, each muslim we kill is another person going to hell. Wouldn't you rather have them alive so that we can show them the way of Jesus?

You are painting three incorrect pictures here. One, clinton did not have a "war on Christians", that's absurd.

Oh but that is where you are absoultely wrong. In bosnia we were killing christians on the word of a muslim. Christians killing christians. Ask any man that was sent there and they will tell you the same thing.

Second, the war in Iraq is not a "war on Islam". It is a war on a country that happens to be mostly Islamic.

Again this is where your wrong, islam is the enemy. It is the drive behind the terrorism. Terror is initiated and supported by islam through every mosque in the world.

Either way though, a Christian life isn't worth any more or less than an Islamic life, or any life for that matter, at least for a good general rule of thumb.

Well when it comes between having your head taken by a muslim or killing them, most people will kill the muslim and rightfully so. In fact it is one instance wherethe bible says its ok to kill someone.

[Eliyahuw]

I wouldn't say that Clinton's was a war on "Christians." Christians, true followers of Christ, do not slaughter innocent babies of any tribe or religion. The people Clinton bombed did such a thing, and instead abused the name of Christ to commit genocidal acts.

were not talking about what was that country, i think somolia or something like that. We were sent into bosnia to kill christians so the muslims could go in and take their land.

All a muslim had to do is accuse a christian of stealing the land, and it could have happend 2 centuries ago, but it didn't matter, and we would have to remove them from the home. Usually this ended up in bloodshed as they retaliated the action.

If christians attacked the muslims for any reason our men were ordered to fire on them and kill them yet when muslims attakced and slaughtered villages, we were under orders to do nothing.

And to think the democrats call what happened in abugraib a atrocity.

[Burning_Ember]

So you have no problem with clintons war on christians but have a problem with the war on islam. FYI were not killing christians over there in iraq.

Friend, killing is killing. An Islamic life is a life. In fact, considering how many here feel about muslims and heaven, each muslim we kill is another person going to hell. Wouldn't you rather have them alive so that we can show them the way of Jesus?

You are painting three incorrect pictures here. One, clinton did not have a "war on Christians", that's absurd.

Oh but that is where you are absoultely wrong. In bosnia we were killing christians on the word of a muslim. Christians killing christians. Ask any man that was sent there and they will tell you the same thing.

Second, the war in Iraq is not a "war on Islam". It is a war on a country that happens to be mostly Islamic.

Again this is where your wrong, islam is the enemy. It is the drive behind the terrorism. Terror is initiated and supported by islam through every mosque in the world.

Either way though, a Christian life isn't worth any more or less than an Islamic life, or any life for that matter, at least for a good general rule of thumb.

Well when it comes between having your head taken by a muslim or killing them, most people will kill the muslim and rightfully so. In fact it is one instance wherethe bible says its ok to kill someone.

Ok. I've always wanted to ask this.

If this is a war on Islam, why are we (by that I mean the U.S.) fighting a war in two countries to help Muslims if all Muslims are terrorists, as you are insinuating? (sic)