treestar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-11 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
Republicans play power games. Democrats try to govern as best they can.
We don't have time for the games.
And the evidence is not as easy as some claim.
|
| -Why didn't the Democratic Party Impeach Bush? |
revolutionnow45 |
Mar-21-11 08:39 PM |
#0 |
-
three words |
notesdev |
Mar-21-11 08:41 PM |
#1 |
 -
Three more words........... |
TheDebbieDee |
Mar-21-11 08:59 PM |
#13 |
  -
I like your answer better. |
bigwillq |
Mar-21-11 09:01 PM |
#15 |
   -
had no balls |
DainBramaged |
Mar-21-11 10:22 PM |
#36 |
   -
I like your answer, too |
Keith Bee |
Mar-21-11 11:21 PM |
#56 |
   -
But the other one is just as accurate... |
JHB |
Mar-22-11 11:15 AM |
#71 |
  -
Three more words... |
Javaman |
Mar-22-11 10:32 AM |
#67 |
 -
Dems were complicit. n/t |
slipslidingaway |
Mar-21-11 10:42 PM |
#43 |
  -
+1 |
eowyn_of_rohan |
Mar-22-11 11:23 AM |
#73 |
 -
Not. enough. votes. |
treestar |
Mar-21-11 10:45 PM |
#46 |
 -
The last word in three words were from Pelosi: (it's) "off the table." /nt |
Festivito |
Mar-22-11 11:22 AM |
#72 |
-
Or they could have been implicated |
WhiteTara |
Mar-21-11 08:45 PM |
#2 |
-
Two Words... |
WillyT |
Mar-21-11 08:47 PM |
#3 |
-
They never had the votes, period. |
JoePhilly |
Mar-21-11 08:47 PM |
#4 |
 -
they always pretend they 'don't have the votes' even with the exec and both houses |
revolutionnow45 |
Mar-21-11 09:07 PM |
#18 |
  -
The most the Democrats had was 49 Senate seats between the beginning... |
MilesColtrane |
Mar-21-11 10:39 PM |
#41 |
 -
The Democratic plan: Don't stick your neck out too far! |
ReggieVeggie |
Mar-21-11 10:15 PM |
#32 |
 -
+1 |
treestar |
Mar-21-11 10:46 PM |
#47 |
 -
They most definitely had the votes to impeach just as the Republicans did under Clinton |
Bandit |
Mar-22-11 08:16 AM |
#61 |
-
Because most of our weak-assed congressional and Senatorial Dems |
Vanje |
Mar-21-11 08:48 PM |
#5 |
 -
Yup |
MuseRider |
Mar-21-11 08:51 PM |
#7 |
 -
+ 1000 n/t |
slipslidingaway |
Mar-21-11 09:35 PM |
#23 |
-
67 reasons |
Richardo |
Mar-21-11 08:50 PM |
#6 |
 -
Yep |
EstimatedProphet |
Mar-21-11 08:54 PM |
#10 |
-
ask Pelosi, she won Speaker running on a no impeachment promise |
Motown_Johnny |
Mar-21-11 08:52 PM |
#8 |
 -
She did not. |
Richardo |
Mar-21-11 09:00 PM |
#14 |
-
Yes, facts are important |
ReggieVeggie |
Mar-21-11 10:20 PM |
#35 |
 -
Crap! |
Richardo |
Mar-21-11 10:24 PM |
#38 |
-
So can you now agree that she holds some responsibility for this |
Motown_Johnny |
Mar-21-11 10:47 PM |
#49 |
-
No - see my other posts |
Richardo |
Mar-21-11 11:44 PM |
#57 |
-
Impeachment is simply holding the trial, you do know that.. right? |
Motown_Johnny |
Mar-22-11 08:16 AM |
#62 |
-
Impeachment is the indictment - the Senate holds the trial |
Richardo |
Mar-22-11 09:33 AM |
#63 |
-
I believe you are mistaken, not about facts being important. I agree with that |
Motown_Johnny |
Mar-21-11 10:42 PM |
#44 |
-
Congress is/was a bunch of spineless hacks that couldn't get behind Kucinich's |
flvegan |
Mar-21-11 08:53 PM |
#9 |
 -
+1 |
smokey nj |
Mar-21-11 09:04 PM |
#17 |
-
Because our party acts as if legitimizing the Republicans is more important |
EFerrari |
Mar-21-11 08:55 PM |
#11 |
 -
we have a lot of work to do because it is completely out of our hands at this point |
revolutionnow45 |
Mar-21-11 10:53 PM |
#53 |
-
We need to expose him still! |
revolutionnow45 |
Mar-21-11 08:58 PM |
#12 |
-
Complicity |
Rage for Order |
Mar-21-11 09:02 PM |
#16 |
-
Show of hands... how many of you on this thread think 'impeachment' means 'removal from office'? |
Richardo |
Mar-21-11 09:08 PM |
#19 |
 -
Blow-back? American would have thanked them once the entire truth came out |
revolutionnow45 |
Mar-21-11 09:57 PM |
#24 |
  -
Well, now, hey, revolution... |
BeFree |
Mar-21-11 10:10 PM |
#30 |
 -
I have never seen anyone point to a specific clause in the Constitution |
cherokeeprogressive |
Mar-21-11 10:03 PM |
#27 |
  -
That rather important part seems to always get overlooked. |
Travelman |
Mar-22-11 10:13 AM |
#66 |
  -
Elizabeth de la Vega's Criminal Indictment of George W. Bush Et Al. -- A BuzzFlash Interview |
revolutionnow45 |
Mar-22-11 11:27 AM |
#74 |
 -
Um, you may not have noticed this, but leaving Bush in office had catastrophic blow-back |
EFerrari |
Mar-21-11 10:04 PM |
#28 |
-
Um. There's a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President |
Richardo |
Mar-21-11 10:11 PM |
#31 |
-
The political cost of never confronting the Bush Mafia |
EFerrari |
Mar-21-11 11:11 PM |
#54 |
-
Calling it 'The Bush Mafia' is one reason why it will never be confronted |
Richardo |
Mar-22-11 09:35 AM |
#64 |
-
No, my affectionate nickname for the Bush crime family is not the problem. |
EFerrari |
Mar-22-11 11:01 AM |
#68 |
-
This should help. |
mmonk |
Mar-21-11 09:11 PM |
#20 |
 -
and Koch was supporting the DLC...big surprise!! |
revolutionnow45 |
Mar-21-11 09:59 PM |
#26 |
-
Because Congress VOTED to authorize the use of force |
Lurks Often |
Mar-21-11 09:19 PM |
#21 |
-
Because there isn't a case against him that doesn't indict the Congressional leadership too (nt) |
Recursion |
Mar-21-11 09:26 PM |
#22 |
-
ugh because they were in on the warmongering. They're called blue dogs. |
lonestarnot |
Mar-21-11 09:59 PM |
#25 |
-
NSA wiretaps meant Bush and Cheney had the donkey pictures. |
Octafish |
Mar-21-11 10:08 PM |
#29 |
-
Why didn't we impeach Reagan? |
MrSlayer |
Mar-21-11 10:19 PM |
#33 |
-
We Never Had Anywhere Near Enough Votes |
AndyTiedye |
Mar-21-11 10:19 PM |
#34 |
 -
It's funny. Republicans are never motivated by whether or not they'll get the votes |
ReggieVeggie |
Mar-21-11 10:23 PM |
#37 |
  -
They *cash-in* bigger campaign contributions. |
Amonester |
Mar-21-11 10:27 PM |
#39 |
  -
It's All About the Media |
AndyTiedye |
Mar-21-11 10:40 PM |
#42 |
  -
They didn't get Clinton convicted and removed from office. |
MilesColtrane |
Mar-21-11 10:46 PM |
#48 |
  -
They do not get what they want |
treestar |
Mar-21-11 10:47 PM |
#50 |
  -
Exactly. |
Ganja Ninja |
Mar-22-11 09:48 AM |
#65 |
 -
Impeachment is the process. You can impeach a president and lose the vote |
Motown_Johnny |
Mar-21-11 10:51 PM |
#51 |
-
The case against Obama is just as strong, and they have the votes. |
Toucano |
Mar-21-11 10:33 PM |
#40 |
-
Keeping our powder dry for, well, for something REALLY big, later, sometime, in the future.... nt |
riderinthestorm |
Mar-21-11 10:43 PM |
#45 |
 -
no sarcasm tag? |
Motown_Johnny |
Mar-21-11 10:51 PM |
#52 |
-
Just a small sob (with that damn pesky sarcasm tag buried in there somewhere...) nt |
riderinthestorm |
Mar-21-11 11:18 PM |
#55 |
-
Too little public support for such a thing. |
Kaleva |
Mar-22-11 12:04 AM |
#58 |
-
They were too lame and they still are....nt |
old mark |
Mar-22-11 01:01 AM |
#59 |
-
Still waiting for HealthCare Reform to kick in.... |
Scuba |
Mar-22-11 06:32 AM |
#60 |
-
Because they were wimps. Nt |
krabigirl |
Mar-22-11 11:02 AM |
#69 |
-
Obama thought - and boy, oh, boy was this naive - that if he decided |
Vinca |
Mar-22-11 11:13 AM |
#70 |