About impeachment.

[aboutime]

What exactly were Bush's impeachable offenses?

Missileman. Let us know if Gabby gives you any kind of Honest answer. Will ya?

[Missileman]

Missileman. Let us know if Gabby gives you any kind of Honest answer. Will ya?

Five will get you ten that she offers no answer at all.

[gabosaurus]

Missileman. Let us know if Gabby gives you any kind of Honest answer. Will ya?

Invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses. Bush lied to Congress about his reason for invading Iraq.

Bush authorized of the monitoring of Americans’ e-mails and phone calls by the NSA to a far greater extend than Obama has. Which Obama (unwisely) has used as a precedent.

Bush lied to the American people several times. He stood at Ground Zero and vowed to bring the perpetrators to justice. Yet when faced with the fact that the Saudi Royal Family trained and financed the hijackers, who were traveling under Saudi passports, he did an about face and chose to deny everything.

Bush authorized the FBI to examine the personal records of tens of thousands of Americans who are not suspected of being involved in terrorism or even illegal acts. Which is a blatant misuse of its authority.

Bush also had the FBI monitor peaceful anti-war demonstrations and had them integrated into Pentagon databases as possible threats to U.S. security.

The Bushies also decided that their bogus “war on terror” exempted it from criminal law and international conventions law preventing torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners.

[aboutime]

Invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses. Bush lied to Congress about his reason for invading Iraq.

Bush authorized of the monitoring of Americans’ e-mails and phone calls by the NSA to a far greater extend than Obama has. Which Obama (unwisely) has used as a precedent.

Bush lied to the American people several times. He stood at Ground Zero and vowed to bring the perpetrators to justice. Yet when faced with the fact that the Saudi Royal Family trained and financed the hijackers, who were traveling under Saudi passports, he did an about face and chose to deny everything.

Bush authorized the FBI to examine the personal records of tens of thousands of Americans who are not suspected of being involved in terrorism or even illegal acts. Which is a blatant misuse of its authority.

Bush also had the FBI monitor peaceful anti-war demonstrations and had them integrated into Pentagon databases as possible threats to U.S. security.

The Bushies also decided that their bogus “war on terror” exempted it from criminal law and international conventions law preventing torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners.

And, As expected. We're still waiting to hear the truth from Gabby.
Consistently accurate at repeating all of the pre-selected Liberal, Talking Points, as directed by Nancy Pelosi, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Echoing the assigned words like a Good Liberal Sheep. Thank you Gabby.

[Kathianne]

And, As expected. We're still waiting to hear the truth from Gabby.
Consistently accurate at repeating all of the pre-selected Liberal, Talking Points, as directed by Nancy Pelosi, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Echoing the assigned words like a Good Liberal Sheep. Thank you Gabby.

Her reasons are as good as anyone's regarding Obama. She didn't like Bush, many don't like Obama. I'm comfortable with my aversion towards throwing the impeachment word around, but that is my right. Same as all of you have the same right to call for it. Doesn't mean Congress will run with that, but you're all free to keep at it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Her reasons are as good as anyone's regarding Obama. She didn't like Bush, many don't like Obama. I'm comfortable with my aversion towards throwing the impeachment word around, but that is my right. Same as all of you have the same right to call for it. Doesn't mean Congress will run with that, but you're all free to keep at it.

I don't agree with Gabby on a lot of things but yes she certainly has every right to her opinion as we do ours. Over the course of my time here I have mellowed a bit and see Gabby's contribution here as a positive one for it strongly presents an opposing view here . One can never claim her not spirited, confident and dedicated to her stands. I admire that even in those that I oppose. -Tyr

[Arbo]

Five will get you ten that she offers no answer at all.

Much in the way we have no answer for Obama's impeachable offenses. Just emotional 'should be' stuff.

[Arbo]

Log's post seemed to be backing one poster over another, though I doubt he meant that. I can see though why it appeared to tyr to be that way. It's one of those hazards of mod. Seemed like he was fighting 'for' the unnamed poster, like we don't know who that could be.

Giving an example of what forums a valid argument that can be seen a more credible is not picking sides.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I don't think he was actually telling you that you MUST respond, but was pointing out what/how you should reply with in order to backup your words. Either way, doesn't matter, as no member has to ever respond to a thread if they choose not to.

I need to come up with a way to differentiate between a mod being a mod, or just posting in a debate.

How about this...

When acting as moderator or admin, actions/comments are posted in red letters. When acting as 'poster', comments are posted in typical black characters.

[fj1200]

I like Log and think it's vice versa too. I don't think he was being unfair intentionally, not at all. The wording was not as impartial as it could have been and seemed to be favoring an 'unnamed' poster, (perhaps whining in pm), with another poster whose style isn't what is favored by some. I get that, but that is one of the problems with being 'on staff' have to be careful how you word things. Especially if for one reason or another you're not crazy about someone.

Off staff I haven't any problem calling people bombastic, or giving too. Everything has its pros and cons.

The 'unnamed poster' raised a valid question; it does no good to rail on about the POTUS and how they're impeachable umpteen different ways without getting into some specifics. A simple response would be to link to the thread that quoted 37 different impeachable offenses; I recall both of us taking a whack at that list.

Nevertheless the "mod question" gets raised occasionally even when the poster is no where near mod status.

[fj1200]

How about this...

When acting as moderator or admin, actions/comments are posted in red letters. When acting as 'poster', comments are posted in typical black characters.

A solution in search of a problem.

[logroller]

I like Log and think it's vice versa too. I don't think he was being unfair intentionally, not at all. The wording was not as impartial as it could have been and seemed to be favoring an 'unnamed' poster, (perhaps whining in pm), with another poster whose style isn't what is favored by some. I get that, but that is one of the problems with being 'on staff' have to be careful how you word things. Especially if for one reason or another you're not crazy about someone.

Off staff I haven't any problem calling people bombastic, or giving too. Everything has its pros and cons.

When I moderate I make it plainly apparent-- usually, if not always, I'll quote a rule of the site. I didn't so in this thread; nor did I take any other staff action. Never remember agreeing to b impartial in my posts, just my staff actions. If my post came off as authoritative, maybe its because my argument was sound and persuasive-- Leaving only accusations of an appeal to authority. There are rules to debate in general, but I only enforce those of the site, and rarely do I.

For the record, I've never had any pm contact with arbo. I sided with a position, that the evidence of impeachable offense wasn't presented, not the poster. Until this very week I've not taken a moderation action against any of my numerous outspoken critics, and in the same action I moved one of jimnyc's posts too-- so accusations of my being partial to or against any given poster are simply unfounded. But hey, what else should I expect after I call someone out for lacking evidentiary support of an accusation but yet another unfounded accusation? Its ridiculous IMHO. There-- I spoke my peace-- back to the subject at hand.

I do belief there's grounds for impeaching holder at the very least over the fast and furious debacle, and specifically the obstruction of a congressional investigation and providing false information. Whether or not it can be proven that Obama was culpable from a legal standpoint is difficult. It would hinge on the application of executive privilege and whether or not administrative immunity qualified for those not at the executive level. There has to be check in place, and if the ministerial actions of officers are immune by virtue of their just following orders, then the executive knowledge of said acts can't also be immune-- someone must answer for them-- the proverbial buck must stop somewhere.
For example, Reagan took responsibility for the Iran-contra affair despite his claim of not being aware. Its one of those things that, while I may be dismayed, I appreciate the president owning up to it and not hiding behind some claim of privilege. But then again, that would require a degree of confidence in healthy public scrutiny that has evaded this country for long time.

Certainly since the starr investigation its been a media circus for the most part: like a public service themed reality show. People just want the drama. Clinton/bush/Obama did some shady stuff, and most politicians do, but unfortunately that's the crux of the story. Too busy taking about semen on dresses, the definition of sexual relations, WMD and birth certificates to get at the root issue of lax transparency in government and its legitimate purpose. Too easy to color it with partisanship and whip up animosity than have a civil discussion devoid of rhetoric and name-calling. Probably because drama sells. Hillary gave a five and half hour testimony before congress on the Benghazi affair and one line, "what difference does it make?", steals the show.

What makes a good talking point doesn't necesarily make it a reflection of truth. I see it all too often where a commonly mentioned assertion just doesn't reflect reality. Maybe its gas prices, or
Immigration, or terrorism. Many a pundit wants to say Obama is the devil but fails to look at the stark facts and context of the big picture. People are, of course, quick to say I'm 'blaming bush', which im not-- Im just saying its an equally weak ploy to blame Obama when, just for example, more people died on bush's terror watch than during Obama's and, likewise, much of the hoopla surrounding privacy matters stem from the patriot act rallied for by the bush admin. Similarly, fast and the furious was borne of a program began by the previous administration. It's bigger than Obama, and bush.

I'm pissed of about it, don't get me wrong, but its not productive to devolve into a blame game. Doing so will likely just make things worse by muffling meritorious debate.

[Kathianne]

Hey, you are welcome to come at me to argue anytime, I may respond or not, but it won't bother me. As a mod though, you have to remember that if you tell me that I didn't answer so-and-so, in such-and-such a manner, it's not the same as when I do the same to you. Indeed, regardless of red or black lettering, you do wear a uniform so your suggestions come with the potential of power. It's why Holder may be on your hot seat in the mix of a response to the problem here and your response to the debate you sort of get into a paragraph or so down.

As I said earlier, I don't think openly debating moderating or whether one is 'not moderating' on the boards is good for much. I don't think it is, so I'm slinking off that topic, again. So for the rest of your post:

I do belief there's grounds for impeaching holder at the very least over the fast and furious debacle, and specifically the obstruction of a congressional investigation and providing false information. Whether or not it can be proven that Obama was culpable from a legal standpoint is difficult. It would hinge on the application of executive privilege and whether or not administrative immunity qualified for those not at the executive level. There has to be check in place, and if the ministerial actions of officers are immune by virtue of their just following orders, then the executive knowledge of said acts can't also be immune-- someone must answer for them-- the proverbial buck must stop somewhere.

I agree that Holder is the guy that protects the West Wing's occupant, the one thing he seems to have done a marvelous job at. There were more than enough democrats in the House at the time of Fast & Furious to prevent that from being fully investigated. In time, it will all come out, these things do.

I think there's even more tying him to the Benghazi crisis, in both cover-up and later obstruction of Congress. Too bad every time it's being addressed, another crisis flares and it disappears from the radar again.

Then there's the IRS scandal, which is the #1 scandal which stands between DOJ and White House, that one may yet cause some accountability, as it's still ongoing.

Where we part company is the need to prove legal culpability is really relevant. The House can, if it so chooses, bring articles against the proverbial ham sandwich. Thankfully, they've yet allowed partisanship to take them to this route, though there was Clinton. That was the reason I put out the link to the Articles of Impeachment against Johnson, they weren't exactly without personal animosity, hardly. We do not want that, but we could find it if the extremists of either party keep on the paths they've been traveling.

For example, Reagan took responsibility for the Iran-contra affair despite his claim of not being aware. Its one of those things that, while I may be dismayed, I appreciate the president owning up to it and not hiding behind some claim of privilege. But then again, that would require a degree of confidence in healthy public scrutiny that has evaded this country for long time.

Certainly since the starr investigation its been a media circus for the most part: like a public service themed reality show. People just want the drama. Clinton/bush/Obama did some shady stuff, and most politicians do, but unfortunately that's the crux of the story. Too busy taking about semen on dresses, the definition of sexual relations, WMD and birth certificates to get at the root issue of lax transparency in government and its legitimate purpose. Too easy to color it with partisanship and whip up animosity than have a civil discussion devoid of rhetoric and name-calling. Probably because drama sells. Hillary gave a five and half hour testimony before congress on the Benghazi affair and one line, "what difference does it make?", steals the show.

We're still in agreement, you are just reiterating what I wrote above. One point, related to the one I made above, Clinton was actually brought up on 'legal charges' that were quite strong in that he committed them, lying under oath and obstruction. The legal charges gave cover for the Senate to censure, but not removal. My contention is that even though 'guilty' of these 'crimes' they shouldn't have been brought forth in impeachment. The Senate agreed.

Impeachment is very serious, it should be a last resort or the way to remove someone dangerous to the country. By dangerous I don't me, 'the majority' doesn't like the president or agree with him/her. Both the IRS and NSA subjects may hold the possibility of a 'dangerous' administration, but that would take Congress getting a special prosecutor, something they are now not interested in doing.

What makes a good talking point doesn't necesarily make it a reflection of truth. I see it all too often where a commonly mentioned assertion just doesn't reflect reality. Maybe its gas prices, or
Immigration, or terrorism. Many a pundit wants to say Obama is the devil but fails to look at the stark facts and context of the big picture. People are, of course, quick to say I'm 'blaming bush', which im not-- Im just saying its an equally weak ploy to blame Obama when, just for example, more people died on bush's terror watch than during Obama's and, likewise, much of the hoopla surrounding privacy matters stem from the patriot act rallied for by the bush admin. Similarly, fast and the furious was borne of a program began by the previous administration. It's bigger than Obama, and bush.

I'm pissed of about it, don't get me wrong, but its not productive to devolve into a blame game. Doing so will likely just make things worse by muffling meritorious debate.

While I hold positions that are certainly partisan, I've never really been a rubber stamp with a party. Obama's folks complain that the right is using the same tactics that the left did with Bush. Whether incivility, posters, protesters, or screaming for impeachment. IMO they were wrong to do what they did to Bush, just as it's wrong to treat Obama the same way. Over and over again during the Bush years, I'd respond to folks on the boards that loved putting up 'Chimpy', "Kill Bush" and such that they wouldn't like it in a few years. I was right. It's also not going away anytime soon.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

When I moderate I make it plainly apparent-- usually, if not always, I'll quote a rule of the site. I didn't so in this thread; nor did I take any other staff action. Never remember agreeing to b impartial in my posts, just my staff actions. If my post came off as authoritative, maybe its because my argument was sound and persuasive-- Leaving only accusations of an appeal to authority. There are rules to debate in general, but I only enforce those of the site, and rarely do I.

For the record, I've never had any pm contact with arbo. I sided with a position, that the evidence of impeachable offense wasn't presented, not the poster. Until this very week I've not taken a moderation action against any of my numerous outspoken critics, and in the same action I moved one of jimnyc's posts too-- so accusations of my being partial to or against any given poster are simply unfounded. But hey, what else should I expect after I call someone out for lacking evidentiary support of an accusation but yet another unfounded accusation? Its ridiculous IMHO. There-- I spoke my peace-- back to the subject at hand.

I do belief there's grounds for impeaching holder at the very least over the fast and furious debacle, and specifically the obstruction of a congressional investigation and providing false information. Whether or not it can be proven that Obama was culpable from a legal standpoint is difficult. It would hinge on the application of executive privilege and whether or not administrative immunity qualified for those not at the executive level. There has to be check in place, and if the ministerial actions of officers are immune by virtue of their just following orders, then the executive knowledge of said acts can't also be immune-- someone must answer for them-- the proverbial buck must stop somewhere.
For example, Reagan took responsibility for the Iran-contra affair despite his claim of not being aware. Its one of those things that, while I may be dismayed, I appreciate the president owning up to it and not hiding behind some claim of privilege. But then again, that would require a degree of confidence in healthy public scrutiny that has evaded this country for long time.

Certainly since the starr investigation its been a media circus for the most part: like a public service themed reality show. People just want the drama. Clinton/bush/Obama did some shady stuff, and most politicians do, but unfortunately that's the crux of the story. Too busy taking about semen on dresses, the definition of sexual relations, WMD and birth certificates to get at the root issue of lax transparency in government and its legitimate purpose. Too easy to color it with partisanship and whip up animosity than have a civil discussion devoid of rhetoric and name-calling. Probably because drama sells. Hillary gave a five and half hour testimony before congress on the Benghazi affair and one line, "what difference does it make?", steals the show.

What makes a good talking point doesn't necesarily make it a reflection of truth. I see it all too often where a commonly mentioned assertion just doesn't reflect reality. Maybe its gas prices, or
Immigration, or terrorism. Many a pundit wants to say Obama is the devil but fails to look at the stark facts and context of the big picture. People are, of course, quick to say I'm 'blaming bush', which im not-- Im just saying its an equally weak ploy to blame Obama when, just for example, more people died on bush's terror watch than during Obama's and, likewise, much of the hoopla surrounding privacy matters stem from the patriot act rallied for by the bush admin. Similarly, fast and the furious was borne of a program began by the previous administration. It's bigger than Obama, and bush.

I'm pissed of about it, don't get me wrong, but its not productive to devolve into a blame game. Doing so will likely just make things worse by muffling meritorious debate.

There, see, that wasn't so hard and contributed to the forum too. Now to address your previous post to me that clearly favored the "suggestion" that I reply using the parameters that were attempted to be forced upon me by the opponent I'll say this. We are here to discuss and debate primarily political subjects and tempers/attitudes are known to flare when doing such. With that stated and the ongoing little game being played by my opponent (which surely you know about) don't you think coming on to either -tell me or even suggest how I reply is in error? If not then please cite any example of me telling you (logroller not the mod) how to reply to any other member here. And after you fail with that, then do you care to explain even if it was just a friendly suggestion to me or even an explaination , why you would feel that was not insulting my intelligence? I need no such help if that was the intent and if it were just a simple observation then I do not see where you can claim either no bias or that you were just being helpful. For your future edification you should maybe consider this, nobody gets to tell me when or how to reply in my posts as long as I abide by the forum rules and the word nobody certainly means NOBODY.. I haven't spent 59 long years and countless troubles in my life upholding that principle to yield to anybody or anything about it now.. And that is why here I am a good guy(some will disagree ) but out in the real world I am a dangerous person to be trifled with. That's a statement of fact certainly not a threat to you or anybody here. As a true patriot, (which I am) I have firm beliefs and that makes me dangerous , as are all men that will fight to uphold greater principles and freedom. --Tyr

[Arbo]

When I moderate I make it plainly apparent-- usually, if not always, I'll quote a rule of the site. I didn't so in this thread; nor did I take any other staff action. Never remember agreeing to b impartial in my posts, just my staff actions. If my post came off as authoritative, maybe its because my argument was sound and persuasive-- Leaving only accusations of an appeal to authority. There are rules to debate in general, but I only enforce those of the site, and rarely do I.

For the record, I've never had any pm contact with arbo. I sided with a position, that the evidence of impeachable offense wasn't presented, not the poster. Until this very week I've not taken a moderation action against any of my numerous outspoken critics, and in the same action I moved one of jimnyc's posts too-- so accusations of my being partial to or against any given poster are simply unfounded. But hey, what else should I expect after I call someone out for lacking evidentiary support of an accusation but yet another unfounded accusation? Its ridiculous IMHO. There-- I spoke my peace-- back to the subject at hand.

Well said and spot on. Even though others make false claims that people want they to answer in a certain way, the reality is just an answer is what is being asked for, one that addresses the question. When asked 'what charges are there', one would think that for good discussion or debate, they actually answer that question rather than cry about being asked a question. As you said previously, it makes for a weak argument, if an argument at all.

And to bring it back on topic, you are correct WRT Holder. And you backed it up with good logic.