Impeachment! Let there be JUSTICE and rule of law or let there be anarchy. Either we are a democracy

[In Truth We Trust]

or we have become a fascist state. Either there is respect for and adherence to the Constitution or there is congressional compliance to the status quo. Either you are a patriot and a democrat (small d) or you are a complicit enabler.

Impeach NOW!!!

There is MULTIPLE grounds for the congress to uphold their oathes of office to preserve and defend the Constitution of these United States.

IMPEACH NOW!!!

[MasonJar]

1. I second! n/t

[porphyrian]

2. I'll kick that. - n/t

[indepat]

3. That your thesis is irrefutable should be obvious to all those but the wholly ignorant

or blinded by the right. :)

[Raskolnik]

4. Either you're with us or you're against us!

It doesn't matter whether its actually POSSIBLE OR NOT!

This issue is BLACK AND WHITE.

If you don't agree with me you are INSERT UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTIC HERE!

SLOGANS RATHER THAN REAL-WORLD CONCERNS!

[In Truth We Trust]

6. Out come the enablers. Now I have to agree though with one point you make; either you are with us or

you are against us.

[Raskolnik]

7. People who live in the real world = enabler. Check.

I didn't realize we would jump into the ad hominems so quickly. Don't you want to dance around it a little before you start with the name-calling?

MORE SLOGANS!

[In Truth We Trust]

8. The world I live in cries out for justice. What world are you living in?

[Raskolnik]

10. The one where math counts for more than empty slogans.

I'd be more than happy to listen to your explanation of where the necessary votes for impeachment & conviction will come from.

I'd also love to hear your plan for dealing with the incumbent Republican vice-president and/or president that would result from either of the current office holders being removed.

[In Truth We Trust]

11. Empty slogans? First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they attack you. What does math

have to do with principle and the rule of law?

I am so sick and so tired of the BULLSHIT meme about "feasabiltiy" and "pragmatism" and "triangulating" and balh blah blah.

I could care less as to the number of votes as long as THERE IS A VOTE. Then I will know that there was some accountability and hearings of the charges. I then know who is by way of their vote who believes in rule of law or not. I then have recourse at the ballot box (otherwise known as the source code box).

My plan for dealing with the subsequent repuke incumbent is simple. I will continue to Campaign for politicians that represent my world view. Your alluding to a perceived threat of a incumbent repuke is a straw man argument in that it has nothing to do with the question of the day we are presented with now. Justice and rule of law or status quo.

Let me ask you one simple question: Do you believe in the rule of law?

[In Truth We Trust]

12. Crickets.... Well, do you believe in the rule of law or not Raskolnik?

[Raskolnik]

Oh please...hold the dramatics if you would.

I don't think five minutes is worthy of "crickets".

[In Truth We Trust]

16. Nice try... It was THIRTY MINUTES since the question was originally posed.

No apology necessary, For someone concerned with math you seem to be math challenged.

[Raskolnik]

17. My apologies. Twenty-two minutes is certainly worthy of a snotty "Crickets" post.

I'm really sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I'll try and be better about it next time, because you're time is obviously valuable.

[In Truth We Trust]

19. Having said you believe in rule of law, why wouldn't you then pursue the application of the rule of

Law?

[Raskolnik]

21. Let's stick with one thread. n/t

[In Truth We Trust]

26. Let's have the decency to address a reasoned question.

[Raskolnik]

30. I meant let's reply to each other in one thread for the sake of continutiy.

Jeebus you are the dramatic one, aren't you?

[Raskolnik]

13. "feasiblity" is "BULLSHIT"?

I would dearly love impeachment to be possible. Unfortunately, neither the votes nor the time are available before 2008. Stamping our feet and holding our breath doesn't change the vote count or the calendar.

And yes, I do believe in the rule of law.

[In Truth We Trust]

15. There is not time?Time. Serious? WTF! There are twenty three months! If then you do believe in the

rule of law, and I assume you would agree that the public record is sufficient to prove high crimes and misdemeanors, then why would you not then pursue the next step in enforcing the rule of law? Seriously, why wouldn't you?


edit for typo

[Raskolnik]

20. No, I don't there is enough time to accomplish an actual investigation & impeachment.

This is not like the Clinton impeachment & its underlying investigation. This would involve (I'm guessing) hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, dozens of intelligence officials, dozens of administration officials, and innumerable classified subjects.

I don't think impeachment is going to be the appropriate venue for the investigation of Bush's handling of Iraq.

[In Truth We Trust]

31. As previously stated there is sufficient evidence in the public record NOW!

We could open hearings tomorrow and play multiple video's of out right lies regarding Iraq, FISA Court, Katrina, Plame etc etc. The list is too numerous and frankly a video of bush** stating he would approach the court for wiretaps and that we weren't wiretapping now after he already authorized and implemented just that.

Has it come to this now. Are you actually saying that it would take two years to compile said evidence? I think not.

[Raskolnik]

34. You apparently aren't familiar with the investigative process.

First, let's get this straight: on which issues do you think Bush should/can be impeached?

If you were to impeach on nothing but Iraq, I think its conservative to estimate a several year investigation. How long do you think it takes to depose intelligence officials? How long do you think it takes to organize and interpret hundreds of thousands of documents, the vast majority of which are highly classified?.

If you honestly think its as simple as pushing play on the Tivo and sitting back for the impeachment trial to unfold, you just aren't being realistic.

[In Truth We Trust]

38. I am quite familiar with the process and as already stated I stand firm on my conviction that the

public record is sufficient to indict NOW!.
I hacve also already named a few high crimes and misdemeanors for you to consider. Please don't discount the FISA/Wiretapping admission or more appropriately violation and admission. It is clear. concise and indefensible.

Of course, we also have the infamous 16 words which require justice's attention. There are literally scores of impeachable offenses and that is FACT. Unless you disagree?

[Raskolnik]

40. Just naming issues is not the same as being able to use them to indict.

You rattled off Katrina, Plame, Iraq, and FISA. Which of those do you think should be used?

[In Truth We Trust]

44. Let's not forget Habeus Corpus and illegal "renditioning". To answer your question I suggest we

proceed with applying the rule of law. I can't be more succinct than that. If you are familiar with the law then you know the answer to your own question. Where there is cause to investigate-investigate. Where there is cause to indict-indict. There is more than sufficient cause.

[Raskolnik]

46. So you don't even know where you'd *start* the investigation?

If you can't even name the lead issue for investigation, it doesn't appear that you're case for impeachment is as clear-cut as you'd have me believe.

There is no possible way that Congress can/would/should instigate an open-ended, undefined investigation of the Executive. That amounts to a fishing expedition, and would destroy any credibility for the most important issues (Iraq, in my opinion).

[In Truth We Trust]

51. You are, in all due respect, being completely disingenuous. You are ignoring my statements and respo

nses. I have stated multiple time's now in this thread that the rule of law should be applied. Indict and impeach. The public record is clear or are you denying there are grounds for impeachment?????

Address any and all high crimes and misdemeanors!! What about that statement don't you get????

The case is as clear cut as is the fact that Sun comes up in the East. Or would you argue it rises in the south? I have already stated an multiple example's of impeachable offense's.

It is late and I must go. I wish you well and I hope that someday you will join us in the impeachment/Constitution redemption and rule of law restoration crowd.

Good night!

[Raskolnik]

59. You are, in all due respect, speaking in trite generalities

Those generalities may provide you with slogans and a sense of moral superiority, but they don't actually address any of the issues that need to be addressed to make impeachment a possibility.

"Address any and all high crimes and misdemeanors", despite however many exclamation points may be attached, does not even begin to acknowledge the enormous practical obstacles that make impeachment unworkable in the next two years.

[In Truth We Trust]

76. Prosecuting renditions, Habeus Corpus, FISA wiretapping are now "trite generalities". They are

specific and prosecutable and furthermore demand prosecution.

Despite your attempt to characterize the situation as having "enormous practical obstacles that make impeachment unworkable in the next two years" the reality is indictments could be handed down in ten minutes.

[Raskolnik]

77. Ok, explain to me what evidence could be used to hand down an indictment "in ten minutes"

for those three issues.

[In Truth We Trust]

78. Already addressed that. Please read the posts to which you respond.

I have already specifically outlined Bush's** public statement claiming he does not illegally wiretap after he in fact initiated illegal wiretaps. He then admitted in Dec 05 that he was wiretaping. Slam dunk! Ten minutes. Long enough to hit the print key and messenger the indictments. I believe in fact that John Conyers already has them in a pdf format.

[Raskolnik]

96. Slam dunk, huh?

Since when is lying in a public statement indictable? Was Bush under oath at the time?

[In Truth We Trust]

97. Wow! Just wow! What a statement.

[Raskolnik]

98. Um, you didn't really address the point, but that's ok.

Apparently, what you *want* to be true is more important than what *is* true.

[hootinholler]

42. It's not really an issue of feasibility nor one of math...

It's more about the cockroaches left over when the injustice is glossed over. Why do you think that slavery is still raised as an issue? Why was this cabal able to reach power in the first place?

All along the line in those instances above, Justice was glossed over. Bay of Pigs, Watergate, Iranian hostage holdover, Iran-Contra, ALL were glossed over. These people would be very unlikely candidates for anything had the facts come to light and justice served.

I don't care about feasibility, or votes, do the investigations properly, publish the results, make the indictments, have the trials, but at all costs, expose what has happened. Once they learn the truth, Ma and Pa Kettle will come around, after all, they may be dumb, but they're not stoopud.

-Hoot

[Raskolnik]

43. I wholeheartedly agree that an investigation is absolutely necessary.

And I just as wholeheartedly feel that an impeachment trial is the absolutely wrong way to accomplish that investigation.

[hootinholler]

45. An impeachment trial is not the investigation...

Surely you mis-spoke. Personally I care little about how the investigation happens, but immensely that a proper investigation occurs. No Curch comission, or 9-11 comission, I want Congress to do its job. A few chairmen are (Waxman), but the effort is scattered a bit. I can't wait until Conyers takes on Gonzo.

-Hoot

[Raskolnik]

47. The investigation that would be necessary for impeachment to take place over Iraq

would be far better performed in other circumstances, in my opinion.

[hootinholler]

50. Over Iraq?

There's so much more than Iraq. But yes Iraqi oil appears to be near the roots of this effort.

So what might those circumstances be? I can't imagine a more attention grabbing and news-worthy forum than a special committee to investigate and draft articles of impeachment.

-Hoot

[Joe Fields]

63. Math be damned! Impeach and let the chips fall where they may.

Right is right, with or without the math. We should go through the process, and the process should not be pre-empted, just because some feel there wouldn't be enough votes for a conviction.

[MonkeyFunk]

49. Then you live in an insular world

In my daily life, I don't hear anybody crying out for impeachment.

People dislike this president, and they realize he's gonna be gone in two years. That's the beauty of our system - we get to revolt every two years.

[In Truth We Trust]

53. Your world doesn't cry out for Justice? Good to be in your world I guess.

Btw, the office of President is a four year office. Semantics, I'm sure you know that and was only referring to federal races in general but since we're not talking about the rule of law and your world is fine then I thought I'd provide some insight in the off chance you may indeed need some reality based information.

The majority of the people in this country right now would support an impeachment. Here's a little experiment you can do that might change your opinion: Put an Impeachment bumper sticker on your car and see how many honks and waves and thumbs up you get. They will outnumber any negatives by multiples. Another exercise you could do is just ask people strait out if they would like bush** cheney impeached. I have and there response is overwhelmingly YES!

[MonkeyFunk]

55. Drama much?

I live in a world where justice is revered. We're just not big crybabies about what YOU consider to be "justice".

We have a bad President. He'll be gone soon. We've had bad Presidents in the past, and they're all gone now, too.

Your appeals to emotion come across as childish tantrums. Believe it or not, this is not the worst period in American history. Far from it.

We'll get through this numbnuts' administration just fine.

[In Truth We Trust]

58. I wonder if you were "renditioned" whether you'd still think things are so peachy?

I appeal to justice and rule of law despite your assertions to the contrary.

[MonkeyFunk]

60. I agree

with you that things like "rendition" are unacceptable. It will change.

Tantrums don't change policy. Elections do.

[GOTV]

84. I wonder if I were tortured would I be happy with a feeble impeachment?

Would I be happy you rushed through an impeachment without first building a case capable of conviction?

Would I be happy you fumbled the best chance to stop the president?

[In Truth We Trust]

91. "a feeble impeachment". Perhaps you are not aware of the public record? Let me ask you this please:

Do you think there are grounds for impeachment? Do you believe in rule of law?

[GOTV]

95. We're both aware of the public record and to a lesser extend than the average Senator....

.... And yet they are not ready to vote for conviction.

To answer your questions

yes and yes.

Never the less it would be foolish to run to impeachment if you are not willing to make a case that would result in conviction.

And you are not patient enough to do the hard work that could stop Bush.

I assume then you're secretly for Bush?

[GOTV]

83. My world doesn't cry as much as your world does - my world works....

... for effective solutions.

Impeachment is not an effective solution to anything but these "impeach now" tantrums on DU

[In Truth We Trust]

87. Your world seems to be of another time... perhaps better referred to as "Tory World".

Based on your multiple posts which I find quite defeatist and which work to dishearten any grassroots effort to secure articles of impeachment I would return the favor and characterize your posts as being an enabler of the status quo.

Impeach NOW!

[GOTV]

94. So what. I understand why congress is behaving this way re. Impeachment. You're confused and angry

[GOTV]

82. You are correct - the people do not demand impeachment at this point n/t

therefore no conviction is possible and so impeachment will not stop Bush.

[In Truth We Trust]

89. 1- Not true 2- Premise not logical. Impeachment occurred vs Clinton regardless of public opinion.

[GOTV]

93. Don't feel a need to support your claims with evidence? That explains your bizarre beliefs

1) It is true

http://pollingreport.com/bush.htm

2) I was agreeing with the poster I replied to so there is no premise and Clinton does not figure into it.

[GOTV]

81. And yet Impeacment does not equal justice. Only conviction is justice...

... when you can convict you can have justice.

If you'd prefer to impotently stamp your feet, you can have your impeachment only.

[In Truth We Trust]

90. Rule of Law! Regardless of the "math". Impeach and let the chips fall where they may.

[GOTV]

92. Excuse me. I didn't see your exclamation point. You must be right n/t

[Totallybushed]

5. RIGHT ON!!

It will not happen, though, I'd be willing to bet. Just a hunch.

[tom_paine]

9. K & R

[BuyingThyme]

14. Hell yes, ITWT!

:applause:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. Oh Goody! A Narrow Minded Black And White I Need Cheap Applause 'Think Like I Do Our Else' Thread!!

Yipppeeeeee!!!! These always hit the spot!!!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[In Truth We Trust]

22. Right on time folks. Here is OPERATIONMINDCRIME. Appropriate. Nice character assault too! You should

be proud operation mind crime. I know I appreciate your contribution to this thread and I'm sure so many many more do too. Perhaps you might like to add some more off top criticism's?

Btw, please do feel free to use the ignore feature any time you like.

edit to add:

Did you really post this in your profile page?: "It's all about integrity, respect, honesty, decency, open mindedness, fairness, and genuine desire to wish good upon all. That is why I'm a liberal."

Because if you did your previous post in this thread surely seems to contradict that sentiment.

[Squatch]

29. He's absolutely correct. And character assault is absent in his response.

[In Truth We Trust]

32. "I need cheap applause" constitutes character assault in my book.

[Caretha]

75. What part of

calling someone "Narrow-minded" isn't an attack on one's character???

Answer that one.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

52. Hi Everybody! How Y'all Doin! Happy Belated Valentines Day!!! Anyway:

Ok, Let's see: integrity, respect, honesty, decency, open mindedness, fairness and genuine desire to wish good will upon all. Ok, what do we have:


"Impeachment! Let there be JUSTICE and rule of law or let there be anarchy."

Not much integrity there. In fact, it was rather foolish.


"Either we are a democracy or we have become a fascist state."

Hey, how'd that lack of open mindedness via black and white thinking work out for ya?

"Either there is respect for and adherence to the Constitution or there is congressional compliance to the status quo."

Hmmmm, not sure that black and white statement is too fair.

"Either you are a patriot and a democrat (small d) or you are a complicit enabler."

Oh really? Wow, I'd say that's one hell of a dishonest sentiment. Also totally misguided and narrow in concept. Probably not to decent to cast such horrible labels on somebody cause they might not walk in lockstep with you. Pretty much showed a lack of respect towards those who cherish free thinking too.


"There is MULTIPLE grounds for the congress to uphold their oathes of office to preserve and defend the Constitution of these United States."

Pretty deceitful and dishonest for you to put forth a premise that impeachment is the only way for them to uphold their oaths of office. They have many other options to do so.


"Right on time folks. Here is OPERATIONMINDCRIME. Appropriate. Nice character assault too!"

Can you say hypocrisy? I didn't attack your character. I attacked your premise. The premise was a black and white narrow minded one with a clear as day tone of 'don't even think of disagreeing with me in this thread'. As always, due to my core values of honesty and integrity, call it like I see it. You're gonna have to get over that.


"You should be proud operation mind crime."

I'm always proud. It's a good way to be. Always hold your head up.


"I know I appreciate your contribution to this thread and I'm sure so many many more do too. Perhaps you might like to add some more off top criticism's?"

Not criticisms; accurate depictions of reality. That's all I do; I speak the truth and use objectivity to do so, even if albeit bluntly. There isn't a term in my initial post that wasn't accurate towards the premise, even if it hurt your feelings to have your premise challenged bluntly.

"Btw, please do feel free to use the ignore feature any time you like."

Mind your own business. Who I choose to ignore is my own business. Worry about who you want to ignore. I feel no need to ignore anybody. I don't mind steppin up and playing the role of that which speaks truth to absurdity. It's an important role, afterall.


"Did you really post this in your profile page?: "It's all about integrity, respect, honesty, decency, open mindedness, fairness, and genuine desire to wish good upon all. That is why I'm a liberal."

Of course. I stand behind it 100%. In fact, I even showed you above how I was defending those concepts. And I do wish good will upon all, you included. But me wanting good will upon you doesn't make you immune from logical and truthful challenges of sentiments. Thicker skin, pal.

"Because if you did your previous post in this thread surely seems to contradict that sentiment."

Nothing contradictory about it at all. As usual I was being bluntly honest in defending the concepts of integrity, respect, decency, open mindedness (which you allllll sorts of violated with this OP) and the rest. That's what I do. Actually, I consider your use of my quote to be an utter sign of weakness in your ability to debate, and also an absolute sign of hypocrisy towards your comment that I was the one offering character assault, when you have set out here with much effort to do as much as that as you could. Pretty funny stuff! :rofl:

Fact is, my original post stands firm in its accuracy. It just does. I'm sorry that bothers you so much, but like I said; thicker skin pal.

[In Truth We Trust]

65. You write;"Nothing contradictory about it at all". Well let's just examine that statement shall we?

Characterizing my post as "I need cheap applause" is character assault at the least and contrary to your proclamation as to being "respectful" and "decent" and to professing to have a "genuine desire to wish good will upon all". To argue it is not character assault is to void any claims to your being an advocate of "fairness" and to being "Honest".

Perhaps if I were to state something on the order of: Hi everybody, how y'all how ya doin? Its me operationmindcrime,coming to make your day with with my prescence and to bloviate about my ability to bloviate and dispense pearls of wisdom your way and to ridicule posters whom I, the decider, feel are not worthy.

"Ok, Let's see: integrity, respect, honesty, decency, open mindedness, fairness and genuine desire to wish good will upon all. Ok, what do we have:"

Yes, so what do we have?:


Impeachment! Let there be JUSTICE and rule of law or let there be anarchy.

"Not much integrity there. In fact, it was rather foolish."

By definition there can be no justice with out rule of law and therefore it is quite logical to assume that the opposite of rule of law ultimately becomes anarchy. So you characterize that as foolish and you don't refute it with any explanation. Just foolish? How very "respectful" "honest" and "decent" you must feel. Don't like it- thick skin pal. I love the pejorative use of the term pal. Nice touch and oh so civil.


Either we are a democracy or we have become a fascist state.

"Hey, how'd that lack of open mindedness via black and white thinking work out for ya?"

Great substantive rebuke there mind crime. I love how you illustrated that it isn't a matter of black and white. You really opened my mind with your open mindedness.

Either there is respect for and adherence to the Constitution or there is congressional compliance to the status quo.

"Hmmmm, not sure that black and white statement is too fair."

Ok well maybe you could elaborate on that thought instead of attacking it unsubstantively. Pretty black and white to me and I certainly would think free thinking people would agree.

Either you are a patriot and a democrat (small d) or you are a complicit enabler.

"Oh really? Wow, I'd say that's one hell of a dishonest sentiment. Also totally misguided and narrow in concept. Probably not to decent to cast such horrible labels on somebody cause they might not walk in lockstep with you. Pretty much showed a lack of respect towards those who cherish free thinking too."

Not dishonest at all. Anyone who is knowledgeable, fully knowledgeable about the multiple crimes of this administration and doesn't support applying the rule of law is not a patriot and by compliance or silence is an enabler.


There is MULTIPLE grounds for the congress to uphold their oathes of office to preserve and defend the Constitution of these United States.

"Pretty deceitful and dishonest for you to put forth a premise that impeachment is the only way for them to uphold their oaths of office. They have many other options to do so."

Again, not deceitful nor dishonest. It is their duty, sworn duty to uphold and defend the Constitution. They have other options such as do nothing of course but the initial expressed sentiment still applies. They have a sworn duty to uphold and defend the Constitution. How is that deceitful?


Right on time folks. Here is OPERATIONMINDCRIME. Appropriate. Nice character assault too!

"Can you say hypocrisy? I didn't attack your character. I attacked your premise. The premise was a black and white narrow minded one with a clear as day tone of 'don't even think of disagreeing with me in this thread'. As always, due to my core values of honesty and integrity, call it like I see it. You're gonna have to get over that."

Can you say disingenuous and selective editing? Nice how you quote virtually everything I posted and attempt to ridicule it but the one thing you left out from your original post was your "I need cheap applause" characterization. Let me ask you: Can you say hypocrite?


You should be proud operation mind crime.

"I'm always proud. It's a good way to be. Always hold your head up."

Good on ya mind crime. You be proud of yourself. I hope someday I too can be proud after assailing someones character. Damn but for this thing called conscience.

I know I appreciate your contribution to this thread and I'm sure so many many more do too. Perhaps you might like to add some more off top criticism's?

"Not criticisms; accurate depictions of reality. That's all I do; I speak the truth and use objectivity to do so, even if albeit bluntly. There isn't a term in my initial post that wasn't accurate towards the premise, even if it hurt your feelings to have your premise challenged bluntly."

Is the truth you refer to operationmindcrime truth? Is selective editing also speaking the truth?

Btw, please do feel free to use the ignore feature any time you like.

"Mind your own business. Who I choose to ignore is my own business. Worry about who you want to ignore. I feel no need to ignore anybody. I don't mind steppin up and playing the role of that which speaks truth to absurdity. It's an important role, afterall."

So be it. Thank you for standing vigilant as the guardian to truth. When I need to know the truth I'll hope you will be available to dispense with it.


Did you really post this in your profile page?: "It's all about integrity, respect, honesty, decency, open mindedness, fairness, and genuine desire to wish good upon all. That is why I'm a liberal."

"Of course. I stand behind it 100%. In fact, I even showed you above how I was defending those concepts. And I do wish good will upon all, you included. But me wanting good will upon you doesn't make you immune from logical and truthful challenges of sentiments. Thicker skin, pal."

No so good on your attempt to defend your proclamation of sainthood. Got holes and leaks and floods bursting at the seams in fact.

Because if you did your previous post in this thread surely seems to contradict that sentiment.

"Nothing contradictory about it at all. As usual I was being bluntly honest in defending the concepts of integrity, respect, decency, open mindedness (which you allllll sorts of violated with this OP) and the rest. That's what I do. Actually, I consider your use of my quote to be an utter sign of weakness in your ability to debate, and also an absolute sign of hypocrisy towards your comment that I was the one offering character assault, when you have set out here with much effort to do as much as that as you could. Pretty funny stuff! :rofl:"

Rofl! Good for you. Perhaps you'll rejoice in hysterics too when I point out that your comment regarding certain abilities to debate is rather farcical and quite hypocritical in that your original post attacked the messenger and not the message. Do you believe your own bullshit so much that you can't see hypocrisy in the mirror. Perhaps your high regard for yourself is based on delusion. Thick skin pal.

"Fact is, my original post stands firm in its accuracy. It just does. I'm sorry that bothers you so much, but like I said; thicker skin pal."

The condescending use of "pal" is indicative and insightful. I've taken too much of your time now so I will wish you the best and will continue to pull for you in your vigilant fight to disseminate your truth.

[Holly_Hobby]

23. This will be the 3rd time I'm posting this

The entire gov't should be impeached. Our elected leaders in Congress aren't exerting the will of the people, as mandated by the Nov. elections. That is taxation without representation. Period.

[Initech]

24. I'm with ya - get rid of every single last one of 'em!

They're all crooks as far as I'm concerned. From the top levels to Bush's cabinet, to the people who voted for IWR, right down to the people who sold the war to the idiotic masses (Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck, Coulter, Hannity, Savage, and so on). They're all fucking crooks as far as I'm concerned!

[Raskolnik]

25. I'm not at all certain you have a firm grasp of government's duties.

Could you point me to the Constitutional provision that requires Congress to "exert the will of the people"?

[Holly_Hobby]

37. It's no wonder no one votes.

[Raskolnik]

41. So if the majority of Americans are against gay marriage, Congress should go right along with that?

And draft a Constitutional amendment reflecting the popular sentiment?

Popular opinion is often dead wrong, and I cannot imagine a government in which government officials could/should be removed (other than by election) for not bowing to popular will.

(edit for clarity)

[GOTV]

85. There are many ways to interpret the Nov elections....

... that it was a call for impeachment is a poor interpretation.

[dysfunctional press]

27. get used to it- it IS NOT going to happen.

for all practical purposes, the 2008 Campaign season has begun...and there's an unpopular war going on that the dems can't even get enough support for a meaningless resolution against...you REALLY think that they could handle something like an impeachment??????
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[In Truth We Trust]

35. Not with that attitude. I really can't tell if you are serious or being sarcastic. My first reaction

was that "not wwith that attitude" but then I thought surely you were being facetious.

[dysfunctional press]

86. funny...i thought YOU were the one being facetious.

this president is NOT going to be impeached. at least not for anything that has already transpired.
when the pukes impeached clinton, they had been working on it for years. the Dems haven't even started any process that could/would lead to impeachment- and even IF they chose to (they won't) the pukes would throw up every concieveable legislative roadblock in their way...and there's less than 21 months until the next election, and the campaign cycle is already almost fully underway.

take a deep breath, and ground yourself in some reality- george bush is NOT going to be impeached, except perhaps by history- no matter HOW BIG a hissy fit anybody decides to throw.

[Squatch]

28. We ARE NOT a democracy.

We are a Constitutional Republic.

[In Truth We Trust]

33. Key word there Squatch would be "Constitutional". What does it say about Congessional responsibility

regarding high crimes and misdemeanors? Besides that, what is really your point? Seems to me to be obfuscation and derailing of the original post.

[Senator]

66. That is a Neofascist Propaganda Meme

(Note: It is not my intent to single you out personally, as you are far from alone in using this phrase to make whatever point you think it is making.)

It's something that sounds reasonable but in reality is nearly devoid of content -- a particularly insidious type of propaganda.

The word "republic" simply means "non-monarchy" (which would be a kingdom). Cuba is a Republic and the "evil empire" was the USSR(epublics). They also have/had constitutions.

The implication is that there is some "other thing" that is better than a democracy. The purpose is to allow people to fill that void with whatever vague notion they'd like to: presemably some form of a theocracy, or anarchy, or monarchy.

The only real content in the statement is "not a democracy," which in addition to being false -- implies something derogatory about democracy or democracies -- and thus about America and Americans.

In an attempt to save time, I'll describe the next step in this argument (as I have had this discussion before).

Next comes an attempt to claim that "representative democracy" is somehow not democracy. And that this is the "other thing" that founders wanted and agreed to, in order to avoid the dreaded "mob rule." The reality is that there has never been, nor could there be, a "non-representative" democracy. Not even in ancient democracies was there ever a situation that could be consider "direct democracy."

Ironically, it may be theoretically possible with the internet to finally apply some form of direct democracy. But the "mob rule" strawman is simple a bogeyman.

Again, the intent is the same. To disseminate a message of "democracy is bad," without revealing that what is being promoted is some nonspecified form of fascism.

--

[barb162]

36. We are a republic , not a democracy. The US never was set up

as a democracy .

[In Truth We Trust]

39. What in the world does your stament and squatch's as well truly have to do with the essence of the

original post? Would you have me edit it to read "Constitutional republic" instead of "democracy"?
Why do feel the need to take this into the weeds and not address the fundamental assertion in the op.

The question remains; rule of law or not? Impeachment or not?

[barb162]

61. You're not getting the real basics correct is the problem

Rule of law? We do have rule of law. Just because it isn't being interpreted to your liking, what can I say? Reid, Pelosi, etal have already stated they wouldn't be going for impeachment. DId you miss that? I'd rather they start working on important things like social security, the war, unemployment, environmental, etc.

[In Truth We Trust]

71. Because the power elite have abdicated their responsibility does not mean I must fall in lockstep

compliance and subjugation. Reid and Pelosi taking impeachment off the table is flat wrong, utterly a deplorable and complicit act and imo completely indefensible.

I disagree with your assertion that we do have rule of law. If a known crime is committed and not prosecuted then by definition there is no application of the rule of law. That is not a matter of "interpretation" as you have us believe. It is a matter of FACT.

Your priorities are somewhat questionable imo. Social Security above rule of law? Social Security above helping Katrina victims? Social Security above Habeus Corpus? You want them to privatize Social Security? Without a transparent electoral process and respect for and adherence to the Constitution there can be no hope for, nor expectation of a democratic future.

Have you heard of multitasking btw? There can be impeachment and governing simultaneously. They do it now. They pass legislation for example funding this "war on terror" while slashing veterans benefits and giving tax breaks to oil companies.

[Senator]

67. Please see my #66 above

[rman]

74. The two do exclude one another

If it's not a democracy, why are there elections?

[MonkeyFunk]

48. Nonsense

we are still a democratic republic. We have a lousy President - and we will get past this.

Impeachment without the possibility of conviction is a fool's errand.

[In Truth We Trust]

54. Compliance and defeatism is NONSENSE.

Not applying the rule of law is NONSENSE.

[Individualist]

56. Hear, hear!

The "play nice with neocons" attitude has got to go! Ignoring treason is inexcusable.

[MonkeyFunk]

57. yawn

shouting doesn't make your position any more feasible.

This president will not be convicted on impeachment. That's a fact.

So let's look forward and try to do better. Or, convince 18 Republicans in the Senate to vote to convict. Personally, I don't believe that will happen.

[Usrename]

69. You support the criminal cabal.

By turning a blind eye to their crimes, you are complicit. This is not a very deep concept.

And where do you get your political insights from, anyways? If Republicans don't get onboard with this, they WILL create a filibuster-proof majority for the Dems. That's just common sense, and it's a real problem for the leadership in both parties.

edit> syntax

[BigBearJohn]

62. What worse can he do? Nuke Iran?Then we impeach him?

[zulchzulu]

64. I couldn't agree more...check out the video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3chpy0CWyI8

Done by yours truly...

[WillyT]

68. BRAVO !!! - Excellent Job !!!

:applause::yourock::applause:

[In Truth We Trust]

70. Very cool video and nice soundtrack too! Great job Zulchzulu! Thank you.

Impeach NOW!

[jarnocan]

72. THANKS for the video LINK above can vote it up on you tube nt

[Hubert Flottz]

73. I agree.

Look at the poor example we are setting for the democracies abroad. They make fun of us now.

[specimenfred1984]

79. Too late, we're a fascist country: Not too late to impeach however

After impeachment, long trials and possible imprisonment for all repukes involved, the entire U.S. system needs overhauled, law by law.

[emald]

80. Anarchy seems to be the rule now, unless your poor.

It does seem to be an anarchical administration, tearing apart the fabric of law and order. Seems to me it must be on purpose; maybe they are trying to destroy the middle class, make us all serfs. They forget the old american patriot attitudes, tread on me and pay dearly for it. FREEDOM is not free. If we will keep it we must end this cabal, this underhanded coup that has destroyed our country, ripped up it's constitution, trampled the rule of law. These "leaders" are clearly in violation of the constitution and many laws as well. No one seems to have the cojones to step up and do something about it. If you are waiting for the dems to do something you shouldn't hold your breath. All they can do is talk. Clearly the repukes still control things, still call the shots.

IMPEACH the emperor chinney and his puppet * now.

[Kurovski]

88. K&R.

It is just as simple as that.

It's all spelled out for us by the founders, so why do we continue to turn away from our duty under the Constitution?

That's the question here, WHY are so many TURNING AWAY from their duty? An oath was taken to uphold the Constitution.

Do it before it's too late.

Impeach, indict, imprison.

Do it.