Kucinich is Enacting Articles of Impeachment against Bush!

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
They can get him on FISA alone. Shouldn't be hard to impeach him, but then he has to have a trial in order to remove him from office. By the time it's all done, he's out of office. I tend to think that rather than let Bush use his considerable power as Executive to block investigations, wait till he's out then crucify him when he's Joe Citizen.

Edit: Easy for this purpose means it should be easy to demonstrate that Bush broke the law, however it will not be easy getting this to trial. It's more a political issue than legal.

Which is what I personally would like to see happen.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Here McCain is being pilloried for being the too tame lap dog of GWB,
but compared to the rest of his fellow GOP candidates, he is the only one who said anything critical of GWB.

That hasn't stopped him from selling out on all of that criticism and pandering to the same constituancy by adopting the Bushwhackos' agenda. I don't care what he calls it, he still wants to continue murdering American troops in Iraq and bleeding the American economy dry with both the war and the inane Bushwhacko tax cuts.

McCain's a two faced, double talking loser who couldn't keep his Double Talk Express on track if it had training wheels. :roll:

 

[KGB]

Originally posted by: Citrix
what a waste of tax payers money.

To the contrary, I can't think of a better use of money.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Lemon law
When the House and Senate members of both parties make up their minds that they need to get rid of GWB&Cheney, the whole thing can be done in one single day and maybe two
tops. The Supreme court has no jurisdiction and its totally up the the legislative branch. And its final without any appeal when 67 or more senators say aye.

GWB does not even have to be present or be offered a chance to defend himself. Private citizen GWB&Cheney can later bitch all they want but it will not change anything. Any pardons will be up to the next President of the United States.

Or maybe you and most other left wingers on this forum are so deranged and foaming at the mouth, you're like a little child who thinks they should get something just because they want it 'SO VEWY MUCH'.

The extreme left wingers on here reminds me of a little kid who keeps begging his Mom and Dad for a new Alienware $4000 tricked out computer when they can barely afford to put away some money for his college. Everytime one of his friends get something new (everytime some bad news come out from Bush), they begin to foam at the mouth and call out how NOT FAIR IT IS (IMPEACH BUSH!). In the end the kid is a deranged mess if he doesn't get his reality checks in time. That's what most of you are. Deranged little kids that twist every tiny news story and blow it completely out of proportion and form in your heads that it's "ground of impeachment". Like a little kid who has no idea about the value of a dollar, most liberals on here don't care to realize that OPINIONS AREN'T ALWAYS FACTS.

What civil liberties have YOU had to give up?

Personally, I'm afraid to put my future kids into public school because of how bad Liberals have made them. They've dumbed down education, made them unsafe physically and mentally and removed all religions from our NATIONAL HERITAGE from them. How's that for civil liberties obstructed?

Now, in Minneapolis the Government gets to tell people how long they can Idle their cars. Bye bye civil liberty.

In Washington or some other west coast state they're considering (last I heard) banning burning a campfire on the beach because of GLobal Warming. Bye bye civil liberty!

If it hasn't passed yet, (I HOPE), then by 2012 or something we won't be able to buy the lightbulbs we want anymore because of some wackjobs who push unproven theories as petrified science. Bye bye civil liberties!

I look around and I see the Liberal democratic movement DESTROYING this countries backbone and infrastructure with their insane policies and they still manage to get people to believe that Bush is the real problem.

Well this administration feels that it can violate FISA. Bush says the law doesn't apply to him, however there is no exception for Presidential prerogative. Without resorting to strawmen or hyperbole, why should a President who breaks the law not be prosecuted? I don't care about Clinton or George Washington. Bush is President now, and a specific law is mentioned. That alone is grounds for impeachment. Do you hold that a President is above the law? Yes or no?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Lemon law
When the House and Senate members of both parties make up their minds that they need to get rid of GWB&Cheney, the whole thing can be done in one single day and maybe two
tops. The Supreme court has no jurisdiction and its totally up the the legislative branch. And its final without any appeal when 67 or more senators say aye.

GWB does not even have to be present or be offered a chance to defend himself. Private citizen GWB&Cheney can later bitch all they want but it will not change anything. Any pardons will be up to the next President of the United States.

Or maybe you and most other left wingers on this forum are so deranged and foaming at the mouth, you're like a little child who thinks they should get something just because they want it 'SO VEWY MUCH'.

The extreme left wingers on here reminds me of a little kid who keeps begging his Mom and Dad for a new Alienware $4000 tricked out computer when they can barely afford to put away some money for his college. Everytime one of his friends get something new (everytime some bad news come out from Bush), they begin to foam at the mouth and call out how NOT FAIR IT IS (IMPEACH BUSH!). In the end the kid is a deranged mess if he doesn't get his reality checks in time. That's what most of you are. Deranged little kids that twist every tiny news story and blow it completely out of proportion and form in your heads that it's "ground of impeachment". Like a little kid who has no idea about the value of a dollar, most liberals on here don't care to realize that OPINIONS AREN'T ALWAYS FACTS.

What civil liberties have YOU had to give up?

Personally, I'm afraid to put my future kids into public school because of how bad Liberals have made them. They've dumbed down education, made them unsafe physically and mentally and removed all religions from our NATIONAL HERITAGE from them. How's that for civil liberties obstructed?

Now, in Minneapolis the Government gets to tell people how long they can Idle their cars. Bye bye civil liberty.

In Washington or some other west coast state they're considering (last I heard) banning burning a campfire on the beach because of GLobal Warming. Bye bye civil liberty!

If it hasn't passed yet, (I HOPE), then by 2012 or something we won't be able to buy the lightbulbs we want anymore because of some wackjobs who push unproven theories as petrified science. Bye bye civil liberties!

I look around and I see the Liberal democratic movement DESTROYING this countries backbone and infrastructure with their insane policies and they still manage to get people to believe that Bush is the real problem.

Well this administration feels that it can violate FISA. Bush says the law doesn't apply to him, however there is no exception for Presidential prerogative. Without resorting to strawmen or hyperbole, why should a President who breaks the law not be prosecuted? I don't care about Clinton or George Washington. Bush is President now, and a specific law is mentioned. That alone is grounds for impeachment. Do you hold that a President is above the law? Yes or no?

The right creates very bogus legal pretenses for their positions. They don't claim Bush is 'above the law'.

In this case, they argue that the war powers clause of the constitution gives him powers that Congress can't touch, pretty much anything he does in the name of defending the US.

The point isn't that it's sane, the point is simply that they have some pretense to point to for the seizure of power.

Similarly, for the war in Iraq, with the US a UN signatory limiting our options for starting war, the administration used the 'imminent threat' provision, as if Saddam had tanks sitting on our border about to attack. It was an absurd claim - made even more laughable with HIS OWN TOP OFFICIALS, Rice and Powell, saying only months before in 2001 that Saddam was 'contained' and not a threat to his neighbors much less the US. But it was a legal pretense.

Same with torture and prisoner rights.

The question is, can our nation's political system ENFORCE its own laws against his abuses?

It was not easy at all with Nixon - but for an unexpected tape with his own incriminating words, the impeachment was going slowly. With our current four radical Supreme Court justices, who are awfully friendly with the radical right-wing agenda of a 'Unitary Presidency', there's a lot of danger. Ironically, it might be the election of Obama that stops them in their tracks; people forget in the 90's how leading Republicans used to profess terror about the abuse of power by President Clinton.

 

[ranmaniac]

The clerk is reading the impeachment resolution on C-SPAN.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: ranmaniac
The clerk is reading the impeachment resolution on C-SPAN.

And that is as far as it will get.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: ranmaniac
The clerk is reading the impeachment resolution on C-SPAN.

And that is as far as it will get.

Don't get your panties all in a knot.....

 

[palehorse]

right, or wrong, it's still 100% pure theater.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234
The right creates very bogus legal pretenses for their positions. They don't claim Bush is 'above the law'.

In this case, they argue that the war powers clause of the constitution gives him powers that Congress can't touch, pretty much anything he does in the name of defending the US.

The point isn't that it's sane, the point is simply that they have some pretense to point to for the seizure of power.

Similarly, for the war in Iraq, with the US a UN signatory limiting our options for starting war, the administration used the 'imminent threat' provision, as if Saddam had tanks sitting on our border about to attack. It was an absurd claim - made even more laughable with HIS OWN TOP OFFICIALS, Rice and Powell, saying only months before in 2001 that Saddam was 'contained' and not a threat to his neighbors much less the US. But it was a legal pretense.

Same with torture and prisoner rights.

The question is, can our nation's political system ENFORCE its own laws against his abuses?

It was not easy at all with Nixon - but for an unexpected tape with his own incriminating words, the impeachment was going slowly. With our current four radical Supreme Court justices, who are awfully friendly with the radical right-wing agenda of a 'Unitary Presidency', there's a lot of danger. Ironically, it might be the election of Obama that stops them in their tracks; people forget in the 90's how leading Republicans used to profess terror about the abuse of power by President Clinton.

Grape or cherry?

:roll:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234
The right creates very bogus legal pretenses for their positions. They don't claim Bush is 'above the law'.

In this case, they argue that the war powers clause of the constitution gives him powers that Congress can't touch, pretty much anything he does in the name of defending the US.

The point isn't that it's sane, the point is simply that they have some pretense to point to for the seizure of power.

Similarly, for the war in Iraq, with the US a UN signatory limiting our options for starting war, the administration used the 'imminent threat' provision, as if Saddam had tanks sitting on our border about to attack. It was an absurd claim - made even more laughable with HIS OWN TOP OFFICIALS, Rice and Powell, saying only months before in 2001 that Saddam was 'contained' and not a threat to his neighbors much less the US. But it was a legal pretense.

Same with torture and prisoner rights.

The question is, can our nation's political system ENFORCE its own laws against his abuses?

It was not easy at all with Nixon - but for an unexpected tape with his own incriminating words, the impeachment was going slowly. With our current four radical Supreme Court justices, who are awfully friendly with the radical right-wing agenda of a 'Unitary Presidency', there's a lot of danger. Ironically, it might be the election of Obama that stops them in their tracks; people forget in the 90's how leading Republicans used to profess terror about the abuse of power by President Clinton.

Grape or cherry?

:roll:

Do you care to point out what part of his post you consider to be wrong?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234
The right creates very bogus legal pretenses for their positions. They don't claim Bush is 'above the law'.

In this case, they argue that the war powers clause of the constitution gives him powers that Congress can't touch, pretty much anything he does in the name of defending the US.

The point isn't that it's sane, the point is simply that they have some pretense to point to for the seizure of power.

Similarly, for the war in Iraq, with the US a UN signatory limiting our options for starting war, the administration used the 'imminent threat' provision, as if Saddam had tanks sitting on our border about to attack. It was an absurd claim - made even more laughable with HIS OWN TOP OFFICIALS, Rice and Powell, saying only months before in 2001 that Saddam was 'contained' and not a threat to his neighbors much less the US. But it was a legal pretense.

Same with torture and prisoner rights.

The question is, can our nation's political system ENFORCE its own laws against his abuses?

It was not easy at all with Nixon - but for an unexpected tape with his own incriminating words, the impeachment was going slowly. With our current four radical Supreme Court justices, who are awfully friendly with the radical right-wing agenda of a 'Unitary Presidency', there's a lot of danger. Ironically, it might be the election of Obama that stops them in their tracks; people forget in the 90's how leading Republicans used to profess terror about the abuse of power by President Clinton.

Grape or cherry?

:roll:

Do you care to point out what part of his post you consider to be wrong?

My comment is about his hyperbole. "radical right-wing agenda"? Puhleeze. "current four radical Supreme Court justices" - :roll: Only a koolaid drinking ultra leftist would post the diatribe he posted.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234
The right creates very bogus legal pretenses for their positions. They don't claim Bush is 'above the law'.

In this case, they argue that the war powers clause of the constitution gives him powers that Congress can't touch, pretty much anything he does in the name of defending the US.

The point isn't that it's sane, the point is simply that they have some pretense to point to for the seizure of power.

Similarly, for the war in Iraq, with the US a UN signatory limiting our options for starting war, the administration used the 'imminent threat' provision, as if Saddam had tanks sitting on our border about to attack. It was an absurd claim - made even more laughable with HIS OWN TOP OFFICIALS, Rice and Powell, saying only months before in 2001 that Saddam was 'contained' and not a threat to his neighbors much less the US. But it was a legal pretense.

Same with torture and prisoner rights.

The question is, can our nation's political system ENFORCE its own laws against his abuses?

It was not easy at all with Nixon - but for an unexpected tape with his own incriminating words, the impeachment was going slowly. With our current four radical Supreme Court justices, who are awfully friendly with the radical right-wing agenda of a 'Unitary Presidency', there's a lot of danger. Ironically, it might be the election of Obama that stops them in their tracks; people forget in the 90's how leading Republicans used to profess terror about the abuse of power by President Clinton.

Grape or cherry?

:roll:

Do you care to point out what part of his post you consider to be wrong?

My comment is about his hyperbole. "radical right-wing agenda"? Puhleeze. "current four radical Supreme Court justices" - :roll: Only a koolaid drinking ultra leftist would post the diatribe he posted.

You don't think the 'Unitary Executive' is a radical right wing agenda? I certainly think it is.

While I don't know if I would say we have 4 radical right wing Supreme Court justices, we certainly have 3. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are all part of the extreme right.

 

[Lemon law]

As usual Cad is delusional and tosses around the very labels he decries. Ok, I agree, don't call it a radical right wing agenda, call it for what its is, criminal behavior by a power mad and idiotic President who asserts powers he does not have in defiance of the law.

As for the supreme court justices who do not seem to be able to read and interpret the clear language of our constitution, they are Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and the worst of them IMHO, Scalia. All claim to be non activists judges while they seem to totally gut the very intent of our constitution to suit their own biases.

 

[Linux23]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: ranmaniac
The clerk is reading the impeachment resolution on C-SPAN.

And that is as far as it will get.

Bush is untouchable.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234
The right creates very bogus legal pretenses for their positions. They don't claim Bush is 'above the law'.

In this case, they argue that the war powers clause of the constitution gives him powers that Congress can't touch, pretty much anything he does in the name of defending the US.

The point isn't that it's sane, the point is simply that they have some pretense to point to for the seizure of power.

Similarly, for the war in Iraq, with the US a UN signatory limiting our options for starting war, the administration used the 'imminent threat' provision, as if Saddam had tanks sitting on our border about to attack. It was an absurd claim - made even more laughable with HIS OWN TOP OFFICIALS, Rice and Powell, saying only months before in 2001 that Saddam was 'contained' and not a threat to his neighbors much less the US. But it was a legal pretense.

Same with torture and prisoner rights.

The question is, can our nation's political system ENFORCE its own laws against his abuses?

It was not easy at all with Nixon - but for an unexpected tape with his own incriminating words, the impeachment was going slowly. With our current four radical Supreme Court justices, who are awfully friendly with the radical right-wing agenda of a 'Unitary Presidency', there's a lot of danger. Ironically, it might be the election of Obama that stops them in their tracks; people forget in the 90's how leading Republicans used to profess terror about the abuse of power by President Clinton.

Grape or cherry?

:roll:

Do you care to point out what part of his post you consider to be wrong?

My comment is about his hyperbole. "radical right-wing agenda"? Puhleeze. "current four radical Supreme Court justices" - :roll: Only a koolaid drinking ultra leftist would post the diatribe he posted.

You don't think the 'Unitary Executive' is a radical right wing agenda? I certainly think it is.

While I don't know if I would say we have 4 radical right wing Supreme Court justices, we certainly have 3. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are all part of the extreme right.

'
Thats right. Because the left has no extremists /nod

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

You don't think the 'Unitary Executive' is a radical right wing agenda? I certainly think it is.

While I don't know if I would say we have 4 radical right wing Supreme Court justices, we certainly have 3. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are all part of the extreme right.

'
Thats right. Because the left has no extremists /nod

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

You don't think the 'Unitary Executive' is a radical right wing agenda? I certainly think it is.

While I don't know if I would say we have 4 radical right wing Supreme Court justices, we certainly have 3. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are all part of the extreme right.

'
Thats right. Because the left has no extremists /nod

What does that have to do with anything?

Chill the fuck out. It was sarcasm.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

You don't think the 'Unitary Executive' is a radical right wing agenda? I certainly think it is.

While I don't know if I would say we have 4 radical right wing Supreme Court justices, we certainly have 3. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are all part of the extreme right.

'
Thats right. Because the left has no extremists /nod

What does that have to do with anything?

Chill the fuck out. It was sarcasm.

I guess I don't get it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

My comment is about his hyperbole. "radical right-wing agenda"? Puhleeze. "current four radical Supreme Court justices" - :roll: Only a koolaid drinking ultra leftist would post the diatribe he posted.

You don't think the 'Unitary Executive' is a radical right wing agenda? I certainly think it is.

While I don't know if I would say we have 4 radical right wing Supreme Court justices, we certainly have 3. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are all part of the extreme right.

My comment is not hyperbole, but I understand that to the ignorant, pointing out the radicalism they're unaware of sounds radical to them.

I expect the response from people like CAD, it's just too bad they bother to actually post it, as there's more variety and equal thoughtfulness from a pull-string doll.

If he'd go read a book such as Paul Krugman's "The Unravelling of America", which I'd offer to send him if he'd read it, he'd have more of a clue, but I'm wasting time on him here.

As to whether Roberts fits the description, I'd very much argue he does, even if his 'charisma' and well-spoken manner make it harder to see.

I would agree that he's slightly less so than the other three from what I've seen, but it's a 90% issue. There are a tiny number of decisions he's drawn the line closer to the norm.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: Linux23

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: ranmaniac
The clerk is reading the impeachment resolution on C-SPAN.

And that is as far as it will get.

Bush is untouchable.

He is simultaneously the most bumbing incompetent fool and the most slick savvy political navigator.. in history.

I'll take some of the sugar-free koolaid on the left side of the koolaid stand, please.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Linux23

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: ranmaniac
The clerk is reading the impeachment resolution on C-SPAN.

And that is as far as it will get.

Bush is untouchable.

He is simultaneously the most bumbing incompetent fool and the most slick savvy political navigator.. in history.

I'll take some of the sugar-free koolaid on the left side of the koolaid stand, please.

There is another possibility. Those in power actually agree with his actions. Have you considered that?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

There is another possibility. Those in power actually agree with his actions. Have you considered that?

Finally, something we agree on.

Bush *got* the wealthy their huge tax cuts. He *got* his top donor industry their corrupt medicare drug bill, and countless other similar acts. He *got* those who want to expand US military presence in the Middle East on tract for permanent military bases and the world's largest embassy in Iraq. His main failure, and thank goodness, has been his destruction of Social Security. But they've waited 70 years, they'll wait longer.

He's also prevented the democrats from regulating all kinds of corporate abuses, and let them continue all kinds of profitable wrongdoing. He's a big win, for a few.

Either the people get back control of the government, or who knows when they'll be able to again.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/hr2977.html

Maybe Dennis should reintroduce his mind control, chemtrail, and earthquake weapons bill, too?

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Linux23

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: ranmaniac
The clerk is reading the impeachment resolution on C-SPAN.

And that is as far as it will get.

Bush is untouchable.

He is simultaneously the most bumbing incompetent fool and the most slick savvy political navigator.. in history.

I'll take some of the sugar-free koolaid on the left side of the koolaid stand, please.

There is another possibility. Those in power actually agree with his actions. Have you considered that?

How dare you suggest that the Dems in congress don't want the war to end immediately!