Do real conservatives have the courage to read this book?

Quote from Haroki:
More...

So impeaching a President that was guilty of perjury, and suborning perjury is 100% politically motivated?

Yes, I believe it was.

Hmmmm, somewhere in the Constitution it speaks about causes for impeachment.....

A trial was held on an elective basis, not a mandatory function, and the prosecutors (those spearheading impeachment proceedings) knew the jury (i.e. the democratic senators) would not support their goals, and that Clinton would not lose his presidency.

This is why Clinton did not resign the way Nixon did, Nixon knew that he would be fully impeached because of the votes in both the house and senate against him. Clinton knew it would be ugly, but he knew he could keep his job.

(I personally think Clinton should have resigned, but he made what I think was a selfish decision, that ultimately gave Bush, the worst president we have ever had, the oval office).

Knowing that, the only reason for the republicans who hated Clinton to continue would be political one, and it worked, as I think it cost Gore the election, as well as added seats to the senate and house to the republicans.

A prosecutor will not try a case that he cannot win, unless their is some political benefit, etc., and the same is true of the republicans in their efforts, knowing that they would fail, they did it for political gain.

So now the Supreme Court is partisan too ?

Likely. I could be wrong, do you have the vote count, and the way the vote count went?

There was little point in it, Clinton had no plans to practice law anyway.

Question - if the USSC was indeed 'partisan', why is Roe v Wade still 'in effect'. Isn't that pretty good evidence to refute what you're alleging?

They need a case presented to them to overturn, and find a reason to overturn.

Roe is law.

We will have some cases not coming up that will show us whether the court is going to be as partisan on this issue as many think.
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

So impeaching a President that was guilty of perjury, and suborning perjury is 100% politically motivated?

Yes, I believe it was.

Hmmmm, somewhere in the Constitution it speaks about causes for impeachment.....

A trial was held on an elective basis, not a mandatory function, and the prosecutors (those spearheading impeachment proceedings) knew the jury (i.e. the democratic senators) would not support their goals, and that Clinton would not lose his presidency.

This is why Clinton did not resign the way Nixon did, Nixon knew that he would be fully impeached because of the votes in both the house and senate against him. Clinton knew it would be ugly, but he knew he could keep his job.

(I personally think Clinton should have resigned, but he made what I think was a selfish decision, that ultimately gave Bush, the worst president we have ever had, the oval office).

Knowing that, the only reason for the republicans who hated Clinton to continue would be political one, and it worked, as I think it cost Gore the election, as well as added seats to the senate and house to the republicans.

A prosecutor will not try a case that he cannot win, unless their is some political benefit, etc., and the same is true of the republicans in their efforts, knowing that they would fail, they did it for political gain.

So now the Supreme Court is partisan too ?

Likely. I could be wrong, do you have the vote count, and the way the vote count went?

There was little point in it, Clinton had no plans to practice law anyway.

Question - if the USSC was indeed 'partisan', why is Roe v Wade still 'in effect'. Isn't that pretty good evidence to refute what you're alleging?

They need a case presented to them to overturn, and find a reason to overturn.

Roe is law.

We will have some cases not coming up that will show us whether the court is going to be as partisan on this issue as many think.
More...

I believe the 'Florida' vote was 7-2. 7 found that the recount violated the Equal Protection Clause. 3 of them found that it violated Article II of the Constitution. Only Ginsburg - Clinton's poodle - and Stevens found otherwise. Ginsburg said that the equal protection clause refers to abortion only and has nothing to do with voting rights.... can ya believe it .....
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

You don't appear to understand election cycles, and long term impact.

Do you know, that the republicans knew that Clinton would not be impeached, because they lacked the votes for it?

Knowing that, why did they pursue it?

If you know the answer, they you would perhaps realize the limited perspective that your question was formed from....and why it is so vital for both democrats and genuine conservatives to crush Bush politically and all those who were part of his junta.
More...

My diagnosis:

This is case of obsession, bordering on paranoid psychosis.

Would you agree, Dr. Res?

sorry, z. but that's really the way i see it.
 
Hey Dr. Saxon, you are entitled to your point of view, and your professional opinions.

Quote from saxon:

My diagnosis:

This is case of obsession, bordering on paranoid psychosis.

Would you agree, Dr. Res?

sorry, z. but that's really the way i see it.
More...
 
Here is how the US supreme court voted, 5 to 4, 100% along party lines:

" On Dec. 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, effectively ended Al Gore's run for president by stopping the recounting of presidential votes in Florida. Its action allowed George W. Bush to declare victory in that state, whose 25 electoral votes were key to clinching the White House. NPR's Tony Cox talks to Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, a strong critic of the court's decision, and Michael Carvin, one of the lawyers who represented Bush before the Supreme Court."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1543944

Quote from Haroki:

I believe the 'Florida' vote was 7-2. 7 found that the recount violated the Equal Protection Clause. 3 of them found that it violated Article II of the Constitution. Only Ginsburg - Clinton's poodle - and Stevens found otherwise. Ginsburg said that the equal protection clause refers to abortion only and has nothing to do with voting rights.... can ya believe it .....
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Here is how the US supreme court voted, 5 to 4, 100% along party lines:

" On Dec. 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, effectively ended Al Gore's run for president by stopping the recounting of presidential votes in Florida. Its action allowed George W. Bush to declare victory in that state, whose 25 electoral votes were key to clinching the White House. NPR's Tony Cox talks to Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, a strong critic of the court's decision, and Michael Carvin, one of the lawyers who represented Bush before the Supreme Court."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1543944
More...

Oops-

you're right, the vote was 5-4. I misread my source.

Hmmm, but 7 Justices found the recount violated the equal protection clause, but still only 5 voted to halt the count....

By God, you're right about something else then too - the liberal judges voted the liberal 'cause', even though 2 of them were of the opinion that there was a civil rights violation with the recount....

JUST like the partisan politics displayed by Dem Senators in the Clinton impeachment hearings.
 
The only thing I like about Bush is he finally is talking about getting rid of oil with ethanol, battery technology and solar energy. The damn big oil company's shot themselves in the foot with these high prices. Not too thrilled with anything else though, well maybe letting that stupid assault weapon ban law slide was a good thing that I liked also and tax cuts, but that's it. Everything else about his choices sucked and I'm disappointed with him. If a real conservative steps up I will vote for him, otherwise I can be a swing voter.
 
If you need to read a book to realize what a poor job Bush has done on many things you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

All he does is realizes there is a problem and decides we need a program or gov't agency and throws money at it while never addressing the underlying causes.

If the leaders of the Democratic party weren't so blind and stupid they would have had a better candidate than John Kerry and Howard Dean to challenge Bush and he probably wouldn't have won a second term.
 
Quote from sputdr:

they would have had a better candidate than John Kerry and Howard Dean to challenge Bush
More...
Are you saying that Kerry and Gore were worse than Bush who's outsourcing our national security to an arab country? That's on top of the war in Iraq, inability to catch Osama and destroy AQ, Katrina disaster, huge trade/budget deficits etc.

Do you really think that Kerry/Gore would have been worse or you've been brainwashed by the republican smear machine to believe that? Or you're just trying to come up with non-existent excuses of your wrong voting decisions? Nobody could have possibly been worse than Bush and people who failed to recognize it in the voting booth aren't too bright to put it mildly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top