Ready for more outrage from the Democrats?

Bluesman · 11-03-2007, 23:06 PM

Well, ready or not, here they come:

Quote:

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) announced today that he will be offering a privileged resolution on the House floor next week that will bring articles of impeachment against the Vice President, Richard B. Cheney.

“The momentum is building for impeachment,” Kucinich said. “Millions of citizens across the nation are demanding Congress rein in the Vice President’s abuse of power.

“Despite this groundswell of opposition to the unconstitutional conduct of office, Vice President Cheney continues to violate the U.S. Constitution by insisting the power of the executive branch is supreme.

“Congress must hold the Vice President accountable. The American people need to let Members of Congress know how they feel about this. The Vice President continues to use his office to advocate for a continued occupation of Iraq and prod our nation into a belligerent stance against Iran. If the Vice President is successful, his actions will ensure decades of disastrous consequences.”

The privileged resolution has priority status for consideration on the House floor. Once introduced, the resolution has to be brought to the floor within two legislative days, although the House could act on it immediately. Kucinich is expected to bring it to the House floor on Tuesday, November 6.

He's a potential Presidential nominee. He's not JUST a simple whacko; he's as 'inside' as anybody in the Democratic Party. Furthermore, he's not alone. Take a squint at the 21 House members who're completely on-side with ole Dennis, so much so that they're proud to sign his measure as co-sponsors:

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Robert Brady (D-PA), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Henry Johnson (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. James Moran (D-VA), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Rep. Albert Wynn (D-MD).

Now, I keep pointing it out and I keep getting a bunch of crap about how I'm WRONG, but the truth is, the Democrats, whether by design or just complete and total moronic ineptitude that has never before been seen on Planet Earth EVER, are setting about trying to destroy the entire country.

And any of YOU that read this and STILL believe that they represent your best interests may as well join al Qaeda. Not much difference anymore.

smilingassassin · 11-03-2007, 23:40 PM

I wouldn't worry, I don't think there are enough stupid americans to vote for a commie wacko like Kucinich and he's living in a riverie if he thinks he can impeach Bush/Cheney before the next election.

Feanor · 11-04-2007, 00:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

I wouldn't worry, I don't think there are enough stupid americans to vote for a commie wacko like Kucinich and he's living in a riverie if he thinks he can impeach Bush/Cheney before the next election.

Now that I am offended by. He is not a communist.

ExNavyAmerican · 11-04-2007, 01:02 AM

Once again the dems are prepared to impeach someone for disagreeing with them. I may be against the unitary executive theory, and think Cheney's an idiot for actually suggesting that the vice president is not part of the executive. But those are opinions. You can't impeach executive officers for disagreeing with Congress. Not even for disagreeing with the constitution -as long as they don't violate it by their actions.

Nothing will come of this, though. The dem majority is too slim.

JAD_333 · 11-04-2007, 02:23 AM

It's a mockery of the impeachment process. The charges are so vague that it is an obvious political ploy. He needs to goose his campaign with some media coverage. The best response is a yawn.

Dwarven Pirate · 11-04-2007, 03:06 AM

And why did the republicans impeach Clinton?

Quote:

A Newsweek poll early this month put Bush's approval rating at 28 percent, the lowest level in a generation. Cheney's is lower. Regarding impeachment, oddly, all the major polling organizations have placed a moratorium on asking about it specifically for nearly a year. Still, the momentum up to that point appears to point to support.

In fall 2005, a nonpartisan Ipsos poll found that 50 percent, compared to 44 percent, of Americans wanted Congress to consider impeaching Bush if he lied about Iraq. This was 72 percent of Democrats, 56 percent of independents and 20 percent of Republicans. There's more: A nonpartisan Zogby poll in early 2006 found that 52 percent of Americans, compared to 43 percent, wanted impeachment if Bush wiretapped Americans without a judge's approval, which he's admitted to doing.

These days, the questioning is more subtle. A CNN poll in January had 63 percent of 1,000 respondents agreeing that they can't trust the Bush administration; 56 percent said they wished the Bush reign was over now.

from Cleveland Free Times

Just like the republicans during Clinton's tenure, the co-signers of HR333 want to be re-elected.

Kusinich merely points toward Iraq in HR333, and for the things he has charged there is certainly evidence that we have been shown in the general media. Whether it is an offence demanding impeachment to mislead the country into an illegal war is, at this point, opinion.

Personally, I dont give a rat's ass about that. I am more concerned over defiance of congressional inquiries, refusal to release presidential records, leaking Plame's identity, ignoring federal law and manhandling the constitution, illegal spying on American citizens, and secret tribunals and prisons. Of which there also seems to be evidence.

So Kucinich wants to impeach for lying about Iraq. Is this somehow better than lying over a *******? I'd say its much much worse. Night and day. Which makes saying this thread is the pot calling the kettle black simply unfair to the kettle.

ExNavyAmerican · 11-04-2007, 03:40 AM

Because Clinton perjured himself to a federal judge -one of the high crimes and misdemeanors that are impeachable offenses. Neither Bush, nor Cheney, have lied about anything -and even if they did, they didn't do it under oath.

ExNavyAmerican · 11-04-2007, 03:47 AM

Pretend for a minute that these articles of impeachment pass the House, and then the Senate convicts and removes Cheney. The next move will obviously be to go after Bush. Did the same thing during Nixon's tenure. They didn't want Agnew to be president, and they don't want Cheney to be president; they have to get them out of the way to get to the big fish.

dalem · 11-04-2007, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dwarven Pirate

And why did the republicans impeach Clinton?

Perjury.

-dale

Dwarven Pirate · 11-04-2007, 07:50 AM

Yes, perjury, as I also specified.

Lying or falsifying facts in order to go to war is a capital crime involving treason, is it not.

ExNavyAmerican · 11-04-2007, 08:01 AM

Lying is not treason. Especially when it's not conclusive that he lied. The thing is, neither is perjury treason; it's an impeachable offence, but not treason.

USAUSAUSA · 11-04-2007, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

Once again the dems are prepared to impeach someone for disagreeing with them. I may be against the unitary executive theory, and think Cheney's an idiot for actually suggesting that the vice president is not part of the executive. But those are opinions. You can't impeach executive officers for disagreeing with Congress. Not even for disagreeing with the constitution -as long as they don't violate it by their actions.

Nothing will come of this, though. The dem majority is too slim.

Liberal tolerence.

If you're a terrorist or child molester, they'll listen to you're point of view.

If you're a conservative, they'll call you a war monger and not listen to you.

Bluesman · 11-04-2007, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USAUSAUSA

Liberal tolerence.

If you're a terrorist or child molester, they'll listen to you're point of view.

If you're a conservative, they'll call you a war monger and not listen to you.

Worse, they'll attempt to actually criminalize policy differences. They'll prosecute you.

gunnut · 11-04-2007, 17:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dwarven Pirate

Yes, perjury, as I also specified.

Lying or falsifying facts in order to go to war is a capital crime involving treason, is it not.

1. Bush was not under oath when he said there were WMD in Iraq
2. Bush's claim was based on best information available to him, not variafiable facts until we went in there to actually take a look
3. Clinton knew for a fact that he lied at the time when he made the statement
4. Clinton was under oath in a court of law

Feanor · 11-04-2007, 18:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

1. Bush was not under oath when he said there were WMD in Iraq
2. Bush's claim was based on best information available to him, not variafiable facts until we went in there to actually take a look
3. Clinton knew for a fact that he lied at the time when he made the statement
4. Clinton was under oath in a court of law

Use some common sense. Clinton lied about getting a blow job. He is in deep sh*t over it. Bush lies about WMD's and uses it as a pretext to start a war. But he can't be impeached for it. Maybe legally that's the way it should be, but if those are the laws then they certainly need some re-writing.

11-03-2007, 23:40 PM	#2 (permalink)
smilingassassin *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 12-12-03 Location: Vancouver Canada Posts: 2,736 Country:	I wouldn't worry, I don't think there are enough stupid americans to vote for a commie wacko like Kucinich and he's living in a riverie if he thinks he can impeach Bush/Cheney before the next election. __________________ Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman. -- Larry Elder

11-04-2007, 01:02 AM	#4 (permalink)
ExNavyAmerican *Military Professional* Join Date: 03-02-07 Location: Ningbo, China Posts: 827 Country:	Once again the dems are prepared to impeach someone for disagreeing with them. I may be against the unitary executive theory, and think Cheney's an idiot for actually suggesting that the vice president is not part of the executive. But those are opinions. You can't impeach executive officers for disagreeing with Congress. Not even for disagreeing with the constitution -as long as they don't violate it by their actions. Nothing will come of this, though. The dem majority is too slim. __________________ "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson

11-04-2007, 02:23 AM	#5 (permalink)
JAD_333 *Defense Professional* Join Date: 04-15-07 Location: Virginia Posts: 2,882 Country:	It's a mockery of the impeachment process. The charges are so vague that it is an obvious political ploy. He needs to goose his campaign with some media coverage. The best response is a yawn. __________________ To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Newly empowered Democrats draw wrath of voters	xrough	Political Discussions	19	06-26-2007 00:44 AM
Democrats To Widen Conflict With Bush	Shek	2008 US Presidential Election	0	04-02-2007 07:55 AM
Democrats babble about strategy	Anon	Political Discussions	32	04-02-2006 22:25 PM
Bush Remaking Supreme Court	Bulgaroctonus	Political Discussions	20	01-19-2006 18:36 PM
Democrats Fear GOP Push on Flag-Burning	Anon	Political Discussions	65	07-31-2005 20:16 PM

11-04-2007, 03:40 AM	#7 (permalink)
ExNavyAmerican *Military Professional* Join Date: 03-02-07 Location: Ningbo, China Posts: 827 Country:	Because Clinton perjured himself to a federal judge -one of the high crimes and misdemeanors that are impeachable offenses. Neither Bush, nor Cheney, have lied about anything -and even if they did, they didn't do it under oath.

11-04-2007, 03:47 AM	#8 (permalink)
ExNavyAmerican *Military Professional* Join Date: 03-02-07 Location: Ningbo, China Posts: 827 Country:	Pretend for a minute that these articles of impeachment pass the House, and then the Senate convicts and removes Cheney. The next move will obviously be to go after Bush. Did the same thing during Nixon's tenure. They didn't want Agnew to be president, and they don't want Cheney to be president; they have to get them out of the way to get to the big fish.

11-04-2007, 07:50 AM	#10 (permalink)
Dwarven Pirate Contributor Join Date: 08-20-07 Posts: 325	Yes, perjury, as I also specified. Lying or falsifying facts in order to go to war is a capital crime involving treason, is it not.

11-04-2007, 08:01 AM	#11 (permalink)
ExNavyAmerican *Military Professional* Join Date: 03-02-07 Location: Ningbo, China Posts: 827 Country:	Lying is not treason. Especially when it's not conclusive that he lied. The thing is, neither is perjury treason; it's an impeachable offence, but not treason.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)