98-0 by the Senate. The House's 420-1 vote

[Maverick]

10bears, I trust clintoons polls as much as I trust bin ladins objectivity towards America.

Tuomio's posts indicate he is about the same as the "free press" of either Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan. Clueless about what America really is.

Mav

[Eagler]

10bears
It was a vote to allow the country to use force against the terrorists, plan and simple.
What does this dumb arse what, to talk to them? It was plan and simple, an attention getter for her political career or maybe she dozed off during the voting and then pressed the wrong button..stop playing politics already, this thing is bigger than Republican vs Democrat. You noticed I didn't mention her political party eh?

[Karnak]

A Congress woman voted against war with the Japanese in 1941 too.

[miko2d]

Originally posted by 10Bears:
But Skuzzy,
 During the impeachment 76% of the people polled said the president shouldn't be impeached for blowjobs... Did that stop the Republicans?

 But 10Bears, the republicans tried to impeach Clintn not for the BJ but for lying under oath in the Court of Law - wich is a criminal offence. It does not matter what he was lying about.
 He could have taken teh 5th and kept his mouth shut (which would have been admission of guilt in the eyes of all people).
 He could have admitted it and be forgiven by most people (myself included).
 He chose to commit a crime by lying.
 There is such thing as Law in that country and President is supposed to protect it, not violate it.

 I can't believe that you are still ignorant what the impeachment was about...

 miko

[Skuzzy]

Geez,..did I miss sometihng?  76% of the people polled said "No" to an impeachment.  The President was not impeached, if I recall,...sound like just what I said.  The people spoke, the majority ruled.

But a criminal offense is out of the hands of the people.  If falls to our justice system to handle that.

All I can say is, if your representative in the House did not vote the way you felt they should have voted, and you did not write to your representative to express how they should vote, then you have zero say in the outcome.
Our representatives are not mind readers, and they will act on responses from thier constituents.  Why?  Because they would like to get re-elected, that is why.

Anyway, all my post was attemtping to do was impart some information to a person that is not from our country about how things are supposed to work here.
People outside the United States have no real reason to know the exact in's and out's of our system.  I was just trying to help someone understand a bit more about how our system works.
Nothing more or less.  No hidden agendas, no hidden meanings.

[LtHans]

The President was not impeached, if I recall,...sound like just what I said. The people spoke, the majority ruled.

Uh.....yes....he WAS impeached.  Impeachment is a trial of sorts to see if the president should be fired.  In this case the trial went easy on Clinton and he kept his job.

Nixon was almost impeached, but he resigned before it got to that point.  He knew he had been caught so he did the right thing and left on his own.

[10Bears]

As far as politics go I read em all. Bartcop, the Freepers, Buzzflash etc.. The reason I don’t opine
on this board very often is I know most of you are conservative to VERY conservative. And I
kinda like getting check 6 calls when I fly your wing. Another reason is to be fair, you have to
check back into this board several times a day to reply to the replies which is very time consuming.

I can't believe that you are still ignorant what the impeachment was about...
miko

Miko, read the Paula Jones transcript. The fact it took them 35 minutes to ask
the first question about Paula should’ve risen a red flag.

Geez,..did I miss sometihng? 76% of the people polled said "No" to an impeachment. The President was not impeached, if I recall

Now Skuzzy, I know you one collage boy... I know you know he was impeached then acquitted.

Nixon was almost impeached, but he resigned before it got to that point. He knew he had been caught so he did the right thing and left on his own.

Lt Hans, well maybe but history records he was asked to resign by Republican Senators who told him he didn’t have the votes.

Look,... I’ll be happy to debate Impeachment sometime with you but I’m not the
hit and run type... that means sitting at the computer all day and hitting the reset button. I’d like to put impeachment discussion on a shelf right now. This weeks events are a trillion times more serious. Was using that analogy to show you politicians don’t always use polling data to make their decisions. If they did it would be mob rule.    
10B

[Fury]

I heard her on NPR last night; she's worried about rushing too quickly ahead and giving the President a blank check (not literally) to do whatever he deems necessary, blah blah blah.

Fortunately we do live in a free country and she can cast any vote she chooses and had the balls (not literally) to do so.

Hopefully the people that elected her will not have a sudden short term memory loss when she comes up for election again.

[Tuomio]

Ok, so voting is all about agreeing with eachothers?
THATS Iraq, i bet theres lots of others who feel differently, but because majority wants to play with guns, they cant vote what they want.
I heard many interviews from NY streets, that  the people who are responsible must be bring to justice, but they dont support unnecessary use of force.

Otherwise you break your own laws. When you break the laws intentionally, you become criminal.
You must declare war before you can start killing innocent people (eventually).
Now theres the problem, can you declare war against Bin Laden and bomb the country he's living in? You have to declare war against Afghanistan if you want to bomb them legally and that will raise other difficulties.

Thats exactly why they are so anxious of bombing without war declaration on objective things, so they wouldnt have to follow the law. Those laws are set up with very good reasons, so you should first argue those reasons before breaking them. This is the impression ive got from the overseas fuzz. I watch the same newscasts and news page that you do.

War on drugs, war on terrorists..Whats the difference? I tell you, war on drugs is so you can shoot your own people at will, war on terrorists is that you can shoot alien people at will. Im not offending, just my opinion (amazinhunk).

[Fury]

President Bush and others in the government have already stated "We're at War" -- but so far there has been no formal declaration.

If all the rhetoric is true and the United States will go after the people who did this and the countries that harbor them then it would not suprise me if we actually declared war on Afghanistan (and probably a few other countries)

[lazs1]

10 bears... depending on how you asked the question and at what point in time you asked it... for instance, If you asked.... "should the president be impeached for lying under oath to the people of the United states for reasons purely to get out of a sex scandal"   right after he had been exosed for being a liar...  u might have gotten a different answer/number....  Who cares?   The people will decide about "babs the red".   They just have a whole lot more information now.... well, actually they allways knew IMO but they just got their face rubbed in it and can't hide from it now.

turimo.... I don't say take ol "babs the red" out and shoot her or even throw her out of office... I have listened to her claim to be one thing and then go and vote another way for years.   I don't believe anyone would have voted for her if she had espoused these views during her election.   I am very pleased that she is expossed is all.  A lot of U.S. politicians on both sides of the fence claim to be "moderate" during election and then become "radical" when they vote or act in our behalf....
lazs