Weekend_Climberz Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 So, legally, at what point is this action against the law and when are the impeachment hearings going to start: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19480518/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 when are the impeachment hearings going to start: When ever the dems get their heads out of the sand and grow some balls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 That's not likely to happen, Kevbone. They are convinced that they have to be perceived as "moderate" in order to get elected. I'm not so sure that if they actually came out with a clear platform and decided to stand for something they couldn't make a good go of it but that is not what their general thinking is. So they'll continue to be marginally better than the Republicans on lots of core issues but otherwise keep from rocking the boat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 They are convinced that they have to be perceived as "moderate" in order to get elected. That is too bad…..that is what I meant about “growing some balls”. I believe a senator should “take one for the team” and risk not being elected just to start the impeachment process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Besides impeachment, what other means can be employed to reign in a president who ignores Congress and the Law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weekend_Climberz Posted June 28, 2007 Author Share Posted June 28, 2007 I think Bill Maher had a good suggestion recently. Something about having terrorists kill Cheney, or something along that lines. Coulters just eats that shit up. It's a wonder how that bitch stays so skinny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toast Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 it's low cal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 He decided he's the Decider, so he can decide what's 2 be decided what's good for the Country. Those fools in Congress don't get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 So, He Decided they can "go get fucked" for all He cares. Get it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weekend_Climberz Posted June 28, 2007 Author Share Posted June 28, 2007 So, He Decided they can "go get fucked" for all He cares. Get it? I thought we were talking about Bush, not Clinton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brianmoore Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 I think Bill Maher had a good suggestion recently. Something about having terrorists kill Cheney, or something along that lines. Coulters just eats that shit up. It's a wonder how that bitch stays so skinny. Why do the TV shows put Ann Coulters on TV? I do not get it. She is lost. She stated on Hard Ball on 6/26/07 that she wished presidential candidate John Edwards would be killed by terrorists. What a loony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 These guys have one goal now: Run out the clock. They know that any court case on the issue will drag on and not be resolved before they leave town, that they can stonewall, and that Congress will not have the balls to actually carry out their Constititional obligations in an election year. So we have an imperialist for the next 18 months. Next up: More scary talk leading up the 911 anniversary just when General Patreous announces that violence is up in Iraq, we're losing ground in most places, there are pockets of progress, and we can't leave now or they will follow us home like a lost dog. Sheesh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 In my mind, this is the heart of the issue: His House counterpart, Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., said Bush's assertion of executive privilege was "unprecedented in its breadth and scope" and displayed "an appalling disregard for the right of the people to know what is going on in their government." This is not a party issue, but an issue that affects every individual. I think that most of us believe in the old "Lead by example" addage. And for our leader to set this example is an affront to all of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwoofalot Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 So, He Decided they can "go get fucked" for all He cares. Get it? I thought we were talking about Bush, not Clinton. Is there any real difference? Clinton was impeached but refused to step down. We have the left wing saying X and they are right, and the right wing saying Y and they are right. But X and Y are direct contradictions. We live in a world of varying shades of grey when we want black and white. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 So, He Decided they can "go get fucked" for all He cares. Get it? I thought we were talking about Bush, not Clinton. Is there any real difference? Clinton was impeached but refused to step down. We have the left wing saying X and they are right, and the right wing saying Y and they are right. But X and Y are direct contradictions. We live in a world of varying shades of grey when we want black and white. Yes, there is a difference. Impeachment is only the legal statement of charges, NOT the involuntary removal from office. Thus, Clinton did not do anything against Congress when not leaving office--that stage had not been reached. Bush is directly refusing an direct legal order from Congress. That is acting like you are above the law. Steven Segal would have a thing or two to say about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Is there any real difference? Clinton was impeached but refused to step down. We have the left wing saying X and they are right, and the right wing saying Y and they are right. But X and Y are direct contradictions. We live in a world of varying shades of grey when we want black and white. Ah the old it's all gray argument. No, Clinton was impeached for lying about a sexual affair. The Bushies are refusing to provide information as required under Congressional oversight. Take your pick, unauthorized wiretapping, secret prisions, refusal to allow Congress access to papers they are due. Why all the secrecy and avoiding Congressional oversight? The current issue goes to the basic workings of a democratic government and the balance of powers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwoofalot Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Where do you draw the line between the powers? The president has the authority to withhold information the administration deems is sensitive. As long as we have the Legislative and Administrative arms controlled by separate parties then these kinds of issues will come up. If the party you identify with is in control of the Administrative arm then you get upset with Congress and assert Presidential privileges. If the party you identify with is in control of Congress then you declare obstruction of justice. Again if you look deeper there is no real difference. Both sides are metaphorically saying, “It is my ball and if you don’t play by my rules then I am going to take it and go home.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 We have the left wing saying X and they are right, and the right wing saying Y and they are right. But X and Y are direct contradictions. We live in a world of varying shades of grey when we want black and white. How do you know that you're not just seeing a mixture of black and white spots from far away? Most of us could look a lot closer if we tried, or had the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Yeah, Bush is so "unique" and over-the-top in asserting "Executive Privelege" - espcially in a politically-driven congressional investigation. This is so over the top! All you Bush-hating nut jobs should start focusing on the the next election and getting Billary into the Oval Office. Bush is out in 2009 no matter how much hate you pile on him now, you fools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinomyte Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 I think it's all a matter of "process." People do things that wrong all the time, and they know that the process that is required to "punish" them will take forever. Bush can push the envelope as far as he wants in regards to presidential discretion, and it won't matter because any attempt to do anything about it will take too long to make a difference. Hell, murderers are on death row for 50 years. I personally give Bush some credit, in that he and his folks will come up with some method of justifying any action they take. There is always an argument for why it's necessary, even if it's inaccurate and that comes out months later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Sheesh, haven't you guys drank the conservative kool aid yet? Remember, this administration is deperately trying to save us from the terrorists! It's not like they are doing anything bad like having sex with interns! o.k., all bullshit aside how long was Nixon able to hide behind executive privelege before he left town with his tail between his legs? What is the next step beyond a subpoena? Can he be held in contempt for refusing to comply, even under executive privelege? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Sheesh, haven't you guys drank the conservative kool aid yet? Remember, this administration is deperately trying to save us from the terrorists! It's not like they are doing anything bad like having sex with interns! o.k., all bullshit aside how long was Nixon able to hide behind executive privelege before he left town with his tail between his legs? What is the next step beyond a subpoena? Can he be held in contempt for refusing to comply, even under executive privelege? blah blah blah. who cares. dubya is less relevant with every passing day Nixon was only a few months into his 2nd term Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 BTW, why isn't the Democrat Congress working on what they promised to be doing to get elected? You know, getting the troops out of Iraq? I guess it's easier to launch endless, politically-driven, bullshit investigations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 So, He Decided they can "go get fucked" for all He cares. Get it? I thought we were talking about Bush, not Clinton. Is there any real difference? Clinton was impeached but refused to step down. We have the left wing saying X and they are right, and the right wing saying Y and they are right. But X and Y are direct contradictions. We live in a world of varying shades of grey when we want black and white. Yes, there is a difference. Impeachment is only the legal statement of charges, NOT the involuntary removal from office. Thus, Clinton did not do anything against Congress when not leaving office--that stage had not been reached. Bush is directly refusing an direct legal order from Congress. That is acting like you are above the law. Steven Segal would have a thing or two to say about that. Clinton lied under oath. Bush says "no" due to executive privledge. Thats his right. Courts to decide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottP Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 when are the impeachment hearings going to start: When ever the dems get their heads out of the sand and grow some balls. President Dick Cheney..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.