immoderate
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jun-17-07 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #37 |
| 47. What madokie is suggesting is that the system might actually work. |
|
But I'm speaking for myself. There may be a point, beyond which Republicans have to consider something other than the party line. Confronted with the actual evidence, laid out in an impeachment hearing, it just may be too difficult for Republicans to deny reality. Historic records will show their malfeasance, and there could be political consequences.
Risks? There are some. What's the downside? Backlash? Sure Clinton benefited, but White House and Congress still went to Republicans. I think the evidence is overwhelming, and the charges are damning. Why worry about future impeachments when we need it now? Will there be worse than Bush? There more likely will if we don't impeach this bastard now!
--IMM
|
| -Impeachment Without A Conviction? Hell Yes! |
kpete |
Jun-16-07 05:40 PM |
#0 |
 -
Impeachment is a wrench in their gears. |
Gregorian |
Jun-16-07 05:55 PM |
#1 |
 -
more |
kpete |
Jun-16-07 06:00 PM |
#2 |
 -
I agree |
blayne |
Jun-17-07 01:38 PM |
#49 |
| -
Exactly! That's my main reason for getting after these bastards NOW... |
warren pease |
Jun-17-07 01:59 PM |
#50 |
| -
Break the line of succession. |
Gregorian |
Jun-17-07 02:31 PM |
#54 |
| -
No, no, no. There will be no impeachment unless there is a chance of conviction. |
elocs |
Jun-16-07 08:00 PM |
#3 |
| -
Al Franken suggested impeaching him in early January 2009, |
Qutzupalotl |
Jun-16-07 08:14 PM |
#6 |
| -
Al has a good sense of humor. I hope he becomes Wisconsin's 3rd senator |
elocs |
Jun-16-07 08:19 PM |
#8 |
| -
Wisconsin's 3rd Senator lol |
Connonym |
Jun-17-07 11:29 AM |
#41 |
| -
I would l ike to see the Dems do it, just to prove they can...Conviction or not!!! |
BrklynLiberal |
Jun-17-07 10:16 AM |
#40 |
| -
How many independent, swing voting Americans do you think there are? |
Vincardog |
Jun-16-07 08:51 PM |
#11 |
| -
Yes, exactly. |
Usrename |
Jun-17-07 05:19 AM |
#25 |
| -
You got that right. We have to make them face the facts. |
Vincardog |
Jun-18-07 03:17 PM |
#84 |
| -
and can you offer any support for your contention that there is no "middle" |
onenote |
Jun-17-07 08:19 AM |
#35 |
| -
No one can prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you sir. The vast undecided independent |
Vincardog |
Jun-17-07 02:21 PM |
#53 |
| -
that depends on what "your" side is |
onenote |
Jun-17-07 10:48 PM |
#76 |
| -
AS to Ned do ya think it had anything to do with the DINO DLC support he received? |
Vincardog |
Jun-18-07 03:05 PM |
#83 |
| -
Of course meaningless timetables with no teeth was serious? A "no confidence" vote |
John Q. Citizen |
Jun-17-07 12:44 PM |
#42 |
| -
wronger words have never been typed. you ought to look into a career at the DLC |
burythehatchet |
Jun-17-07 04:19 PM |
#66 |
| -
No, cowardice is name-calling, using buzz words to discredit somebody's opinion. |
elocs |
Jun-17-07 04:35 PM |
#68 |
| -
I'm sorry |
burythehatchet |
Jun-17-07 04:41 PM |
#70 |
| -
I could get behind that, just so the history books might reflect what an |
babylonsister |
Jun-16-07 08:08 PM |
#4 |
| -
if the effort is truly one without a chance in hell of a conviction |
bigtree |
Jun-17-07 06:40 AM |
#27 |
| -
its beyond me that you just know for a fact there can/will be no conviction |
madokie |
Jun-17-07 07:10 AM |
#28 |
| -
the premise of the OP is to impeach 'no matter what the outcome may be' |
bigtree |
Jun-17-07 07:20 AM |
#29 |
| -
Just what do you propose we do |
madokie |
Jun-17-07 07:29 AM |
#30 |
| -
I've got eyes and ears |
bigtree |
Jun-17-07 07:48 AM |
#32 |
| -
what frustrates me is saying we shouldn't because we don't have the votes |
madokie |
Jun-17-07 07:53 AM |
#33 |
| -
well, the votes are part of it - the most important part, in my view |
bigtree |
Jun-17-07 08:16 AM |
#34 |
| -
I think we are totally on different pages |
madokie |
Jun-17-07 08:24 AM |
#36 |
| -
this is the problem madokie: folks getting ragged on for having reservations |
bigtree |
Jun-17-07 08:48 AM |
#37 |
| -
Have you read HR333? It contains specific charges. Go read it if you haven't already. |
John Q. Citizen |
Jun-17-07 12:53 PM |
#44 |
| -
I've got my own set of charges, but there haven't been any presented |
bigtree |
Jun-17-07 03:01 PM |
#57 |
| -
What madokie is suggesting is that the system might actually work. |
IMModerate |
Jun-17-07 01:19 PM |
#47 |
| -
I want to know how any process will affect the goals we have set out |
bigtree |
Jun-17-07 03:18 PM |
#60 |
| -
A good question. Legislation is blocked by the Senate... |
IMModerate |
Jun-17-07 04:22 PM |
#67 |
| -
also, |
bigtree |
Jun-17-07 04:39 PM |
#69 |
| -
OK, let's test it out. |
IMModerate |
Jun-17-07 06:46 PM |
#72 |
| -
I think that the legislative process isn't as static as you think |
bigtree |
Jun-17-07 07:51 PM |
#73 |
| -
"DU Orthodoxy"--now that term says it all. I'll have to remember that one. |
elocs |
Jun-17-07 11:52 PM |
#79 |
| -
No Confidence, if passed would have effected what? Toothless timetables would have done |
John Q. Citizen |
Jun-17-07 12:51 PM |
#43 |
| -
I don't think you have any ground at all to distinguish a process that doesn't intend to convict |
bigtree |
Jun-17-07 03:10 PM |
#58 |
| -
The pace isn't the issue. Condi is ignoring her subpoena at the same pace |
John Q. Citizen |
Jun-17-07 11:16 PM |
#78 |
| -
I fully agree. |
Qutzupalotl |
Jun-16-07 08:11 PM |
#5 |
| -
I'll put it on my wish list, right next to winning the Powerball tonight. |
karlrschneider |
Jun-16-07 08:14 PM |
#7 |
| -
"Most of whom just sit on their fat asses"-- |
wienerdoggie |
Jun-16-07 10:49 PM |
#18 |
| -
madokie turns to look and guess what, no fat ass here |
madokie |
Jun-17-07 07:31 AM |
#31 |
| -
Impeachment without conviction is a positive step. |
hootinholler |
Jun-16-07 08:35 PM |
#9 |
| -
Another good reason for impeachment Hoot... you stated: |
lyonn |
Jun-16-07 11:53 PM |
#21 |
| -
Impeach them all. After open public thorough investigations and the highlighting their |
Vincardog |
Jun-16-07 08:47 PM |
#10 |
| -
I think the GOP knew |
Mz Pip |
Jun-16-07 08:52 PM |
#12 |
| -
And the impeachment of Clinton worked in so far as |
JDPriestly |
Jun-17-07 02:18 PM |
#52 |
| -
Why is this still even a debate? |
walldude |
Jun-16-07 08:58 PM |
#13 |
| -
Don't forget the fact that they "receive" contributions, BIG ... |
Amonester |
Jun-16-07 10:45 PM |
#17 |
| -
(I forgot to add:) never. Until the day contributions will be regulated |
Amonester |
Jun-16-07 10:56 PM |
#20 |
| -
DLC doesn't want Bush to be impeached |
notsodumbhillbilly |
Jun-17-07 12:59 PM |
#46 |
| -
Absolutely agree. |
Vidar |
Jun-16-07 09:05 PM |
#14 |
| -
Agree, if not now when? |
mirrera |
Jun-16-07 09:36 PM |
#15 |
| -
Agree completely. Get the goddamn ball rolling before it's too late-- |
wienerdoggie |
Jun-16-07 10:52 PM |
#19 |
| -
K&R. (nt) |
Kurovski |
Jun-16-07 09:40 PM |
#16 |
| -
Impeach, indict. Say goodbye, it's time to go! |
sfexpat2000 |
Jun-17-07 12:00 AM |
#22 |
| -
HELL YES!!!! I'm sorry I don't remember who said it here - deep apologies |
calimary |
Jun-17-07 12:45 AM |
#23 |
| -
Yes! Failure to impeach is a tacit admission that the system does not work! |
IMModerate |
Jun-17-07 01:30 PM |
#48 |
| -
That's exactly right. n/t |
sfexpat2000 |
Jun-17-07 10:55 PM |
#77 |
| -
the first rule of politics is self-preservation . . . when the evidence is presented . . . |
OneBlueSky |
Jun-17-07 03:28 AM |
#24 |
| -
if one occurs, it won't be some omnibus collection of charges |
bigtree |
Jun-17-07 06:02 AM |
#26 |
| -
I say we need to cover all the bases to stop the destruction of America. |
lonestarnot |
Jun-17-07 09:11 AM |
#38 |
| -
The radical Republicans failed to convict Andrew Johnson but they crippled his presidency. |
Tierra_y_Libertad |
Jun-17-07 09:52 AM |
#39 |
| -
Yes, the modernday equivalent of a 'tarring and feathering' as you can get nt |
EVDebs |
Jun-17-07 12:58 PM |
#45 |
| -
It will move the focus from the Republican candidate in 2008 |
JDPriestly |
Jun-17-07 02:14 PM |
#51 |
| -
I agree completely |
NotGonnaTakeIt |
Jun-17-07 02:52 PM |
#55 |
| -
Would you take an unsuccessful impeachment now over a successful one later? |
EstimatedProphet |
Jun-17-07 02:57 PM |
#56 |
| -
Yes because it would bring them to a screeching halt until 2008 |
ThomWV |
Jun-17-07 03:29 PM |
#61 |
| -
That's where we have our disagreement then |
EstimatedProphet |
Jun-17-07 08:55 PM |
#74 |
| -
Ummm,...that didn't work out so well, last time. Convictions are NECESSARY, this time. |
sicksicksick_N_tired |
Jun-17-07 03:12 PM |
#59 |
| -
I say jump on it |
libodem |
Jun-17-07 04:07 PM |
#62 |
| -
I agree -- it is clear only impeachment will stop this war (nt) |
AtomicKitten |
Jun-17-07 04:09 PM |
#63 |
| -
I see no reason to avoid impeachment proceedings |
Canuckistanian |
Jun-17-07 04:14 PM |
#64 |
| -
"legally, impeachment is a slam dunk"? What does that mean? |
onenote |
Jun-18-07 11:47 AM |
#80 |
| -
I meant "the case for impeachment" is a slam dunk |
Canuckistanian |
Jun-18-07 12:10 PM |
#82 |
| -
Investigate, then impeach |
sampsonblk |
Jun-17-07 04:16 PM |
#65 |
| -
Excellent. Release the Hounds. |
bjobotts |
Jun-17-07 04:49 PM |
#71 |
| -
What's the worst that can happen? |
Sarah Ibarruri |
Jun-17-07 10:12 PM |
#75 |
| -
several things |
onenote |
Jun-18-07 11:50 AM |
#81 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread