“In spite of what he said was pervasive corruption in the White House, Charlie Rangel, the dean of New York’s congressional delegation, said today he wouldn’t want President Bush impeached. ‘God forbid!‘ he said.” The reason?
“I would vote against impeachment of Bush too because the corruption of the Vice President Cheney would even be worse,” Rangel said.
rofl
July 29th, 2007 at 7:09 pmAnd this is precisely why Cheney should be impeached first.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:09 pmThen impeach Cheney first.
It’s not that difficult.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:11 pmDeep thinker, that Rangel.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:12 pmActually, impeach Gonzales first (so Bush can’t keep him from going to jail for perjury), impeach Cheney second, then, before Bush can get a new Vice President through Congress, impeach Bush. Three up, three down, the Mets are up to bat next! Can’t stay, got a lot of research to do. Check in later.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:13 pm**Sighs…**
July 29th, 2007 at 7:13 pmWhy do they have to be so f*cking short-sighted…?
July 29th, 2007 at 7:14 pmHi, Wayne!
July 29th, 2007 at 7:14 pmBye, Wayne!
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 29, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
I’m really starting to think Gonzo’s gonna resign soon.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:16 pmActually, this brings up an important question..perhaps the other TP regulars (trolls need not apply) could weigh in:
If the VP is successfully impeached, who becomes the next VP? Would it be the Speaker of the House, or does the President have the option of appointing a replacement?
A while ago, another poster said that for this reason, a simultaneous impeachment of the President and the VP would be the only way to go. I replied that there was probably no mechanism in place to allow for such a “tandem” impeachment. Does anyone know if such a thing would be possible?
Also, where does the fatally compromised Justice Department fit into all this? If impeachment proceedings need to go through Gonzo, you can bet they’ll go nowhere.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:18 pmDo them all at once.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:18 pmDo a political surge.
If it supposidly works in Iraq, why wouldn’t it work in the US.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 29, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
I would imagine that the President would appoint a new VP. This is what happened when Agnew resigned.
Legally, a VP’s impeachment would not necessarily reflect on the president himself. So I would assume Bush would have the right to appoint Cheney’s replacement.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:21 pmIf impeachment proceedings need to go through Gonzo, you can bet they’ll go nowhere.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 29, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
Impeachment is a function of the Congress. I don’t believe the DoJ would need to be involved in any meaningful way.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:23 pmTripMaster Monkey — July 29, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
Impeachment is handled SOLEY by the Congress…….
If the VP is impeached, then Bush gets to select the replacement VP.
This is another reason why BOTH need to be impeached.
I am so tired of the Dems doing nothing over this, that they have lost my vote.
I will vote for ANYONE who runs as an Independant before I vote for a Dem now! I will not vote at all if there are no Independants to vote for…….
Unless they begin standing up and protecting the Constitution, they are done as far as I am concerned.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:24 pmI replied that there was probably no mechanism in place to allow for such a “tandem†impeachment. Does anyone know if such a thing would be possible?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 29, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
My guess would be that you are right about this one.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:24 pmEgreggious, RemoveBush,
Thanks for setting me straight….I was mixed up. The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia is involved in contempt of Congress proceedings, not impeachment proceedings.
So many violations of the law going on…it’s difficult to keep up. It seems that that is the strategy of the administration lately.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:30 pmgreasy, sleazy rangel condemns greasy sleasy Bush and Cheney…..no hope for amerika
July 29th, 2007 at 7:36 pmIt seems that that is the strategy of the administration lately.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 29, 2007 @ 7:30 pm
Break so many laws the rest of us can’t keep track, so we don’t know which person to prosecute for which crime? Sadly enough, it seems to be working.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:38 pmGonzo will resign.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:39 pmCheney will have to be impeached, followed by Bush. But
I don’t think we can accomplish both, however, before the 2008 election.
So, let’s force Gonzo to resign.
Impeach Cheney.
Bush wil resign because his brain (Cheney) and his ass (Gonzo) would be gone and he can’t make it without them.
Perhaps impeach Bush, then begin impeachment proceedings against Cheney the moment he is sworn in. It might be possible to limit his term as president to two days, one day for the House to impeach, and another for the Senate to convict. This leaves the question of whether Cheney can appoint a VP before he is removed from office. And of course the Senate has to convict, which means that a lot of Republicans have to get on board (slim chance of that, though).
Suppose, though, that enough Republicans get on board to remove Bush from office before he does anymore damage to the GOP. If the votes are already lined up, a deal might be struck wherein Cheney is impeached and removed from office, then Bush is made an offer: appoint a VP that is acceptable to the impeachment bloc in the Senate (a non-crazy Republican seems likely), then resign, else be impeached and dragged out of the White House in chains.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:40 pm#10 TMM
July 29th, 2007 at 7:40 pmIf Cheney resigns, Bush will appoint another VP.
When Spiro Agnew resigned, Nixon appointed Gerald Ford.
Bush wil resign because his brain (Cheney) and his ass (Gonzo) would be gone and he can’t make it without them.
Comment by Marie — July 29, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
I always thought KKKarl was Bush’s brain. Wouldn’t that make Cheney his… well, you know.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:40 pmGee, thanks for nothing Charlie. This isn’t rocket science–you either impeach the Dick first, or better, impeach the Dick and the Chimp together. Dems need to grow a spine *and* a pair and stand for the Constitution, our legal system, and this nation. Now that they have some power, their rhetoric has become extremely weak, and they don’t seem to be interested in listening to the people who actually put them in power–the voters.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:42 pmOoops! Egreggious and Remove Bush — sorry, I didn’t see your posts before I wrote mine. We all said the same thing.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:42 pmwhy worry about impeachment, what is coming their way is an INDICTMENT. The impeachment can happen later.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:43 pmImpeach Gonzo, then bring Bush and Cheney up on charges of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE in the USA scandal.
I notice MSM is avoiding the Tillman story and the WH claim of EP completely.
That is sickening and shows that the 4th estate is supporting this criminal regime.
Comment by Marie — July 29, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
Don’t sweat it. It happens all the time.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:45 pmHey Justice–Agreed. Gonzo/Fredo could go immediately–indictment and impeachment are important to make sure that he can’t hold office or a high-level execposition once he gets out of jail. And the claim of exec priviledge over the Tillman death-killing-possibly murder? WTF is going on this country? 99% of the media needs to be fired and off the air/out of print forever.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:47 pmRangel has no intention of impeaching anybody to begin with.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:48 pmHe is just using a pacifying langauge which became a trade mark of this Democratic Congress.
While he is trying to look deep in his thoughts in explaining his position and ahead of everybody, the reality is this Congress has shown no strength so far in confronting and winning against either Bush or Cheney. This Congress cannot even force people to testify,..can’t handle even Gonzalez.
Rangel (along with all the other Dems in Congress) needs to have a little get-together with Bruce Fein so he can explain it to him that Congress CAN impeach Bush AND Cheney at the same time. He explained it pretty well in his discussion with Bill Moyers Journal along with John Nichols. Two birds with one stone. I’m for it.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:48 pmDear Sir; Impeach the abu, then the shooter and by then the thing they call president will have to come clean or implode.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:52 pmeven those of us that aren’t in your lofty perch can see the order of battle. Why don’t you?
Once Bush and Cheney are gone NOBODY else will want to keep Gonzales around. He is only useful as a cover for Bush’s activities. He is a weasle and an incompetent dweeb.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:54 pmMaybe if Rangel had read H.R. 333 he would realize that it is for the impeachment of Dick Cheney, not George Bush.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:54 pmrangel, according to link, was speaking on CNN’s “Late Edition”…
surely there’s a video clip… it would be worth it to see
this exchange in context…
it sounds to me as if rangel is attempting some humor,
some levity into the conversation…
they can’t come out and say it’s gonna happen, not yet…
they are doing so much to gather information and evidence…
i have a feeling they are waiting for the massive amount of
wrongdoings to get out to the public…
they need the people behind them to get the ball rolling…
sure wish they could start before this august recess…
July 29th, 2007 at 7:55 pm…
Regarding Chimpy appointing a replacement in the event of Deadeye’s successful impeachment…is such an appointment subject to ratification by the Senate, as is the case with justice appointments. If so, the Senate could stall the process long enough to impeach Chimpy by denying the appointee an “up or down” vote.
If not, the House would have to move quickly to impeach Chimpy before he had a chance to appoint a replacement, but knowing Rove, he’s got the replacement’s name written on Chimpy’s hand by now.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:56 pmDesperate men do desperate things.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:57 pm“why worry about impeachment, what is coming their way is an INDICTMENT. The impeachment can happen later.
Impeach Gonzo, then bring Bush and Cheney up on charges of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE in the USA scandal.
I notice MSM is avoiding the Tillman story and the WH claim of EP completely.
That is sickening and shows that the 4th estate is supporting this criminal regime.
Comment by Justice — July 29, 2007 @ 7:43 pm”
Because they CAN’T be indicted while in office!!!
The ONLY means to charge a siting president is by Impeachment!
Articles of Impeachments are the INDICTMENT and the Senate tries the case.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:59 pmDuh! you impeach both. both have committed crimes against the laws of the constitution. besides Bush-Cheney have been one word for a long time.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:02 pmas in, Impeach Bush-Cheney!
Feeling a little evil
July 29th, 2007 at 8:03 pmFeeling a little mean
Move to the Village
Whores of Pillage
Feeling a litte rotten
Feeling a little obscene
Come to DC
Come to the Green
Feeling a little bad
Feeling a little sin
Don a diaper
Pay the viper
If not, the House would have to move quickly to impeach Chimpy before he had a chance to appoint a replacement, but knowing Rove, he’s got the replacement’s name written on Chimpy’s hand by now.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 29, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
I sometimes wonder if Fred Thompson might not end up as president if impeachment and conviction succeeded.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:09 pmActually, impeach Gonzales first (so Bush can’t keep him from going to jail for perjury), impeach Cheney second, then, before Bush can get a new Vice President through Congress, impeach Bush
So you want to steal the Presidency. Weren’t lefties whining about how that South Dakota Dem might be replaced by a Republican despite the people electing a Democrat?
July 29th, 2007 at 8:11 pmAs this seems to be the most unprecedented administrations, why not do another unprecedented move… IMPEACH them together.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:13 pmRegarding Chimpy appointing a replacement in the event of Deadeye’s successful impeachment…is such an appointment subject to ratification by the Senate, as is the case with justice appointments. If so, the Senate could stall the process long enough to impeach Chimpy by denying the appointee an “up or down†vote.
He will just recess appoint a new Vice President, perhaps Jeb Bush. No way Nancy Pelosi is usurping the Presidency!
July 29th, 2007 at 8:14 pmm12 sez:
First of all, it’s not “stealing” when it’s carried out according to the rule of law. Familiar with that term, m12? “Rule of law”?
Second, whining about getting something “stolen” that was never rightfully yours in the first place is intellectually dishonest…not to mention pathetic.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:15 pm1. Go after Darth first.
2. Then the Chimp
3. Put Pelosi in
3. Then install Feingold.
Feingold/Sheehan ‘08!!!!
July 29th, 2007 at 8:16 pmhttp://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/transcript2.html
(Below is a little excerpt from the transcript of the Moyers/Fein/Nichols discussion):
BILL MOYERS: You’re saying you want the judiciary committee to call formal hearings on the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney? (my emphasis, but when Bill Moyers asked the question, he emphasized this word).
BRUCE FEIN: Yes. Because there are political crimes that have been perpetrated in combination. It hasn’t been one, the other being in isolation. And the hearings have to be not into this is a Republican or Democrat. This is something that needs to set a precedent, whoever occupies the White House in 2009. You do not want to have that occupant, whether it’s John McCain or Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani or John Edwards to have this authority to go outside the law and say, “I am the law. I do what I want. No one else’s view matters.”
July 29th, 2007 at 8:18 pmm12,
When I started asking serious questions back in post #10, I stipulated that “trolls need not apply”. That means you, and it still applies.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:18 pmSo you want to steal the Presidency. Weren’t lefties whining about how that South Dakota Dem might be replaced by a Republican despite the people electing a Democrat?
Comment by m12
We have 540 more days of this increasingly criminal insane administration. The point is to put an end the insanity before it worsens…
July 29th, 2007 at 8:19 pmI notice MSM is avoiding the Tillman story and the WH claim of EP completely.
Not totally. Michael Duffy mentioned the new evidence of Tillman’s death on the chris matthews show today…in the section about news stories that will arrive shortly in the press. We’ll see.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:25 pm“down in the DUngeon with the 9-11 nutz.”
And those WMD’s that made you soil your shorts are located at …
July 29th, 2007 at 8:26 pmm12: Steal the presidency? America and the world needs a strong and serious President. In Bush–we have neither. I guess when he takes his advice from people like Wolfowitz, Libby, Rove, Perle, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, the best he can expect is what he has ended up with–failure.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:26 pmI agree with the earlier poster that Congress needs to impeach Gonzo first and then the Shooter and George the Second, if there is time left in his criminal administration. The health and safety of our constitution depends on taking these actions soon. Just look at the Exexcutive Order of July 17th which allows the Treasury Secretary to steal our assets without notice and without judicial review. Congress needs to open their eyes.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:29 pmComment by JG — July 29, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
That’s a great interview. Anyone who hasn’t seen it really must watch it.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:31 pmWhat was the secret NSA program that was so Illegal that the attorney general balked.?? My bet is… the Data Mining project on American Citizens without warrants that congress specifically outlawed when Adm. Poindexter suggested it. It’s serious enough to have Gonzales babbling incoherently before congress.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:33 pmWe’ll see if it is serious enough to impeach Bush.
Amendment XXV
Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
That should remove any doubts. Sorry, got more writing to do.
I’m really starting to think Gonzo’s gonna resign soon.
Comment by Egreggious — July 29, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
I think that if the Congress officially goes into a “Recess”, then Gonzo will resign and Bush will get another horrible Recess Appointment.
I will vote for ANYONE who runs as an Independant before I vote for a Dem now! I will not vote at all if there are no Independants to vote for…….
Unless they begin standing up and protecting the Constitution, they are done as far as I am concerned.
Comment by RemoveBush — July 29, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
GIVE ‘EM THE BIRD,
VOTE FOR A THIRD!
:)
Catch you later. Thanks.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:33 pmCut the crap Rep. Rangel > Kucinich knows that Cheney must be impeached first, so if you vote to halt impeachment of Bush, then we the people will fire your ass in next election.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:34 pmCome on, Charlie! You know the drill: First we impeach Cheney and THEN we impeach Chimpya.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:35 pmDoes anybody know a Democrat in Harlem, New York, who can replace Rep. Rangel in 2008 primary election? Charlie has had a free ride in Congress for almost 40 years. Only Rep. Conyers has been in longer than old Rangel.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:41 pmGonzo or Cheney first – doesn’t matter. In either case, Bush’s replacement choice would have to be approved by Congress.
Heh, heh, heh… good luck getting another NeoCon lickspittle past the 110th Congress House of Representatives.
Then go after Bush and prevent him from doing any more damage to the country over the next 1 1/2 years.
I have a lot of respect for Rangel, but like many in Congress, they are too busy to read ANYTHING apparently. Everyone in the impeachment movement is actively going after Cheney first at this point. Rangel is arguing against a point that has been adequately responded to months ago when Kucinich introduced H. Res. 333 to impeach Cheney.
One troubling thing. If the House approved an impeachment trial to begin against Cheney in the Senate, Cheney, as president of the Senate would preside. Logic would seem to be that Cheney would recuse himself, but with this crew??!?!? Who knows?
July 29th, 2007 at 8:42 pmOne troubling thing. If the House approved an impeachment trial to begin against Cheney in the Senate, Cheney, as president of the Senate would preside.
Comment by Mikael Rudolph — July 29, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
Please don’t make my head hurt.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:46 pmhttp://rawstory.com/news/afp/Mystery_money_in_Japan_appears_in_m_07282007.html
Off topic. Sorry. But perhaps this is a sign. =P
July 29th, 2007 at 8:46 pmTMM,
I think you skeeered away the m12 troll. Good job!
July 29th, 2007 at 8:50 pmOff topic. Sorry. But perhaps this is a sign. =P
Comment by La Cuckoo Rot Ya — July 29, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
Crazy stuff!
July 29th, 2007 at 8:51 pmFirst of all, it’s not “stealing†when it’s carried out according to the rule of law. Familiar with that term, m12? “Rule of law�
So you agree that the entire Tim Johnson replacement argument is bs?
July 29th, 2007 at 8:51 pmI think you skeeered away the m12 troll. Good job!
Comment by Zooey — July 29, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
mommy12 came with nothin’ and left with even less.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:52 pmAccording to Wikipedia:
The impeachment-trial procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass “articles of impeachment” by a simple majority. (All fifty state legislatures as well as the District of Columbia city council may also pass articles of impeachment against their own executives.) The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been “impeached.”
July 29th, 2007 at 8:52 pmNext, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. Otherwise, the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, or the President pro tempore of the Senate presides. This may include the impeachment of the Vice President, although legal theories suggest that allowing a person to be the judge in the case where she or he was the defendant wouldn’t be permitted. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of someone other than the President), the duties would fall to the President Pro Tempore.
So who would the President Pro Tempore be?
Also, would the person in charge possibly be the Chief Justice? If so, this Administration covered their bases well there..
m12: Steal the presidency? America and the world needs a strong and serious President. In Bush–we have neither. I guess when he takes his advice from people like Wolfowitz, Libby, Rove, Perle, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, the best he can expect is what he has ended up with–failure.
That’s your opinion. It’s not the opinion of 62 million voters!
July 29th, 2007 at 8:52 pmWhen I started asking serious questions back in post #10, I stipulated that “trolls need not applyâ€. That means you, and it still applies.
Who did you want to answer your question? More ignorant left winged fools like yourself?
July 29th, 2007 at 8:55 pmI’ve noticed that some people’s arguments around here are incredibly lame.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:55 pmWe have 540 more days of this increasingly criminal insane administration. The point is to put an end the insanity before it worsens…
Is that your defense for your obvious hypocritical argument regarding the replacement of a Democratic Senator by a GOP governor?
July 29th, 2007 at 8:56 pmSome people here have no ability to think for themselves.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:57 pmImpeaching this Pres and VP is not trying to ’steal the presidency’. It is not even about being vindictive. It is the cure for this Constitutional crisis this Administration has created by their criminal behavior and pursuits.
Another excerpt:
JOHN NICHOLS: Bill Moyers, you are making a mistake. You are making a mistake that too many people make.
BILL MOYERS: Yes.
JOHN NICHOLS: You are seeing impeachment as a constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the cure for a constitutional crisis. Don’t mistake the medicine for the disease. When you have a constitutional crisis, the founders are very clear. They said there is a way to deal with this. We don’t have to have a war. We don’t have to raise an army and go to Washington. We have procedures in place where we can sanction a president appropriately, do what needs to be done up to the point of removing him from office and continue the republic. So we’re not talking here about taking an ax to government. Quite the opposite. We are talking about applying some necessary strong medicine that may cure not merely the crisis of the moment but, done right-
BRUCE FEIN: Moreover, it’s–
JOHN NICHOLS: –might actually cure–
BRUCE FEIN: It’s not an attack on Bush and Cheney in the sense of their personal– attacks. Listen, if you impeach them, they can live happily ever after into their-
JOHN NICHOLS: And go to San Clemente.
BRUCE FEIN: Yes, go to San Clemente or go back to the ranch or whatever. But it’s saying no, it’s the Constitution that’s more important than your aggrandizing of power. And not just for you because the precedent that would be set would bind every successor in the presidency as well, no matter Republican, Democrat, Independent, or otherwise.
JOHN NICHOLS: The fact of the matter is that, again, the genius of impeachment is it tells the president that, wow, there is a Congress. And that Congress is on your case. And it causes, I think at its best, it causes a president to want to prove he can cooperate, to want to prove he can live within the law.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:57 pmm12 sez:
Someone capable of rational thought…which, again, rules you out. Shoo.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:58 pmComment by JG — July 29, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
Thanks for reminding me of that part of the interview.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:00 pmSo who would the President Pro Tempore be?
Comment by JG — July 29, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
Senator Robert “Barbaric!” Byrd.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:01 pmI have to laugh at you lefties though. On one hand you claim its not stealing if its done by the rule of law.
But when the Supreme Court ruled in 2000 in accordance with the rule of law, you claimed Bush stole the election!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:01 pmImpeaching this Pres and VP is not trying to ’steal the presidency’. It is not even about being vindictive. It is the cure for this Constitutional crisis this Administration has created by their criminal behavior and pursuits.
If this is truly your rationale, you would allow President Bush to choose a new Republican Vice President.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:02 pmIt’s no secret vp man and his gang stuck this guy in office to fill the space.Take out the quarterback.But in reality they have a back-up and back-up plan.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:04 pmDon’t ever forget they have had over 30 years to put this whole mess together.All of it including the massive deception/s.
All the same names have been in rotation through the whole game.
They are really the only ones “for us”.
There is no outside threat.
Only pissed off people who get mad when you steal their gold(oil) and rape their country.
If this is truly your rationale, you would allow President Bush to choose a new Republican Vice President.
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
If he were not, himself, tainted and due for his own impeachment, we would certainly give him another try at choosing a vice president with a modicum of respect for the rule of law. But his own impeachable offenses (I won’t repeat them; they’re all over the web; you can find them yourself if you really need to know what they are) have stripped him of that perogative.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:06 pmm12 sez:
The bolded text above is where you went wrong. If you’re honestly this clueless, go educate yourself. If you’re being deliberately obtuse, just go.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:07 pmBut when the Supreme Court ruled in 2000 in accordance with the rule of law, you claimed Bush stole the election!
That would have something to do with the fact that ALL the votes, votes by registered American voters, were not allowed to be counted. That is NOT lawful. Why the problem with allowing ALL the votes to be counted if Bush was so sure that he had won?? That one still stuns me..
July 29th, 2007 at 9:07 pmIf this is truly your rationale, you would allow President Bush to choose a new Republican Vice President.
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
Not if they are both impeached both at the same time (as Bruce Fein strongly recommends).
July 29th, 2007 at 9:08 pmBoth at the same time right after Gonzales. God this is too stupid for words. Do we have a constitution or not?!?!?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:08 pmThat would have something to do with the fact that ALL the votes, votes by registered American voters, were not allowed to be counted. That is NOT lawful. Why the problem with allowing ALL the votes to be counted if Bush was so sure that he had won?? That one still stuns me..
Not lawful according to who?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:09 pmNot if they are both impeached both at the same time (as Bruce Fein strongly recommends).
So, in other words, you are trying to implant Nancy Pelosi in the Presidency.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:10 pmIf he were not, himself, tainted and due for his own impeachment, we would certainly give him another try at choosing a vice president with a modicum of respect for the rule of law. But his own impeachable offenses (I won’t repeat them; they’re all over the web; you can find them yourself if you really need to know what they are) have stripped him of that perogative.
Where in the constitution does a President have any perogative stripped of him?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:11 pmI’m often intrigued by the fact that hypocrisy often cuts both ways.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:11 pmIf this is truly your rationale, you would allow President Bush to choose a new Republican Vice President.
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
Yeah, and then we’ll just impeach THAT one too! ^_^!!!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:11 pmYeah, and then we’ll just impeach THAT one too! ^_^!!!
On what grounds? This should be interesting?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:12 pmWhere in the constitution does a President have any perogative stripped of him?
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
I believe he was saying Bush has lost all credibility at this point.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:12 pmSo you want to steal the Presidency.
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
No, the adults here are talking about how to save our country and its Constitution. So get lost, freak.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:13 pmOn what grounds? This should be interesting?
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
Curious… you seem totally devoid of any sense of humor, or irony, or sarcasm… just a stuffy, self-righteous little prig, aren’t ya? Bet ya wear a bowtie too!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:13 pmQuestion: If Cheney is removed and Shrub boy names a replacement VP, is that choice subject to Congressional Oversight / Hearings ?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:15 pmI believe he was saying Bush has lost all credibility at this point.
If you say so. But I am not aware of any law that says a man who has lost credibility (whatever that is) loses his Presidential powers.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:15 pmComment by TripMaster Monkey — July 29, 2007 @ 7:18 p
Actually, this brings up an important question..perhaps the other TP regulars (trolls need not apply) could weigh in:
I’d like a shot, please.
If the VP is successfully impeached, who becomes the next VP? Would it be the Speaker of the House, or does the President have the option of appointing a replacement?
As you can see from Amendment XXV above, the president nominates a replacement who must be confirmed by both Houses. Only in the case of both the president and voce [president being unable (or unavailable) to perform their duties, would the Speaker of the House become President. (Or possibly just Act as President.)
A while ago, another poster said that for this reason, a simultaneous impeachment of the President and the VP would be the only way to go. I replied that there was probably no mechanism in place to allow for such a “tandem†impeachment. Does anyone know if such a thing would be possible?
It’s never been done before because there has never been an administration as thoroughly corrupt and dismissive of the constitution and rule of law as this one. (With the possible exception of Grant’s.) The trials in the Senate do not have to be held concurrently, they can be held consecutively.
Also, where does the fatally compromised Justice Department fit into all this? If impeachment proceedings need to go through Gonzo, you can bet they’ll go nowhere.
My understanding is that impeachment is purely a function of the Legislative Branch, except in the case of the president where the Chief Justice presides. Remember, the president cannot give out pardons in cases of impeachment. I believe that this applies even once smeone has been convicted and removed (specifically because of an impeachment). I believe that thsi is why Nixon resigned rather than get convicted and removed, so that Ford could give him a pardon, because it no longer involved a case of impeachment. For that reason, impeach both Gonzales and Cheney now, before Bush issues either of them a pardon, which would negate any jail time they deserve to serve.
I hope this helps. I also hope I’m right. makes sense to me, but I’m no lawyer.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:15 pmOh, and don’t forget, m12: I expect to see you drag your sorry ass here on November 5, 2008. So much crow will be forced down your throat so fast we’ll be able to make foie gras out of your exploded liver.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:16 pmI guess on Sunday evenings the Troll Patrol only fields a skeleton crew. He’s12 drew the short straw tonight, huh?
That’s like sending the coach’s son out to the mound to face the league champs, with no infielders behind him.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:16 pmThat’s like sending the coach’s son out to the mound to face the league champs, with no infielders behind him.
Comment by spit take — July 29, 2007 @ 9:16 pm
More like the bat boy.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:18 pmOh, and don’t forget, m12: I expect to see you drag your sorry ass here on November 5, 2008. So much crow will be forced down your throat so fast we’ll be able to make foie gras out of your exploded liver.
I will, VerbalKint. Hypothetically though, if Romney wins, what will you say?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:18 pmBut I am not aware of any law that says a man who has lost credibility (whatever that is) loses his Presidential powers.
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
m12, there are not enough hours in the day to compile a list of everything you are not aware of.
Credibility? Like, for instance, you don’t have any. No one here takes you seriously, yet here you are again, glowering, making a pain of yourself. Why? What do you accomplish? You seem to thrive on rejection.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:19 pmWow, I’m disappointed in Rangel. He has no imagination. I’m betting that congress could impeach both of them at the same time. Just because it has never been done before doesn’t mean that it can’t be done. I would like to see them Impeach Gonzales first, to get their feet wet and then impeach both Chaney and Bush at the same time. The only problem with that argument is that the Republicans will start screaming that the Democrats are trying to overturn the election and grab the presidency.
On the other hand Congress can impeach Chaney and then when Bush tries to nominate another Vice President, Impeach Bush. He won’t be able to get his new Vice President confirmed while he is being impeached. But, then, the Republicans would again say that the Democrats were trying to overturn the election.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:19 pmComment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 29, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
Thank you for trying, stupid. Have a nice day!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:21 pmHypothetically though, if Romney wins, what will you say?
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
Hypothetically speaking, I’m guessing that VerbalKint would be more gracious in defeat than you will be when Hillary/Obama/Gore/Edwards wins.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:21 pmThe Dems won’t Impeach Bush because he is much too valuable as reason to NOT vote Republican. It’s Ironic how the Dems are using Bush the same way that the Republican’s used Bin Laden.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:22 pmThank you for trying, stupid. Have a nice day!
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
Gosh… what a personality. You must have so many friends.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:22 pmHypothetically speaking, I’m guessing that VerbalKint would be more gracious in defeat than you will be when Hillary/Obama/Gore/Edwards wins.
I highly doubt it. Back in 2004 all the left winged blogs were spewing venom!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:22 pmWhy do some people here ask questions that have already been answered in the thread? It seems rather obtuse.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:24 pmA while ago, another poster said that for this reason, a simultaneous impeachment of the President and the VP would be the only way to go. I replied that there was probably no mechanism in place to allow for such a “tandem†impeachment. Does anyone know if such a thing would be possible?
Well, I am just thinking that if Bruce Fein, who is a staunch conservative and highly respected and recognized Constitutional scholar/attorney believes and suggests that there are grounds for them to be impeached together, suggests they should be impeached together, then I would take him on his word. He should know.
Just because it has NOT been done before does not mean it CANNOT be done.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:24 pmWayne, thanks for your explanations. They are most helpful. :-)
July 29th, 2007 at 9:26 pmI highly doubt it. Back in 2004 all the left winged blogs were spewing venom!
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
Since this is all hypothetical, who cares?
And since you have no credibility, your assessment of “all the left wing blogs” isn’t worth the paper you wipe yourself on (if indeed you wipe yourself).
July 29th, 2007 at 9:26 pmRep. Charlie Rangel was first elected to Congress in 1970, so is in his 19th term of office. He has run unopposed in Harlem for at least the last 9 terms. He gets reappointed to his position every election year. He therefore believes he can spit on everybody and get away with it. He must be told otherwise!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:28 pm“In case of a Vice Presidential vacancy, the Amendment permits the President to appoint, with the approval of both Houses of Congress a new Vice President.”
Both houses of Congress would have to approve a new Vice President. The Democratically controlled House of Representatives could hold up the appointment of a Vice President long enough to impeach Bush.
It is not that hard, and it doesn’t have to take that long. I don’t know why everyone thinks that impeachment takes a long time. Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, the trial lasted from January 7, 1999, until February 12.
Impeaching Chaney and then Bush is entirely doable, especially if they start real soon!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:28 pmComment by bilbobaggins — July 29, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
Do you know if the time frame you mentioned included the Senate trial as well?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:31 pmIs that your defense for your obvious hypocritical argument regarding the replacement of a Democratic Senator by a GOP governor?
Comment by m12
What does that have to do with the urgent need of impeachment of our Ex branch? Damn….. give it up… you are washed up.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:31 pmWhat does that have to do with the urgent need of impeachment of our Ex branch? Damn….. give it up… you are washed up.
Everything, if you are trying to push Queen Pelosi into the Presidency!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:31 pmComment by spit take — July 29, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
Why are you pulling assertions of ‘gracious’ leftwingers out of your rear?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:34 pmEverything, if you are trying to push Queen Pelosi into the Presidency!
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
Huh??? This makes no sense at all.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:35 pmBut when the Supreme Court ruled in 2000 in accordance with the rule of law, you claimed Bush stole the election!
The bolded text above is where you went wrong. If you’re honestly this clueless, go educate yourself. If you’re being deliberately obtuse, just go.
I am still waiting for an answer to this question!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:37 pmSo, what happens if they (one or both) are impeached but not removed? Is there any hope at all that this would be enough to reign in their abuse of power and overreaching (as well as all-out lawbreaking)?
Can both (or either) claim Executive Privilege when it comes to giving up documents for an impeachment hearing? Of course this doesn’t include Cheney who isn’t actually in the Executive Branch…;-)
July 29th, 2007 at 9:37 pmWhat happens if they pull a Harriet Miers and just don’t show up (thumbing their nose at the House)?
m12 > only way Pelosi can become president is if Bush and Cheney both resigned together, or if they both dropped dead for some reason. If Cheney is impeached first, then a new VP would replace him, then if Bush was impeached the new VP would take his place and then a new VP for him.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:38 pmHuh??? This makes no sense at all.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 29, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
It’s m12….remember? Dumber than a bag of toenails.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:38 pmthe idiocy is becoming unbearable
July 29th, 2007 at 9:40 pmThe Republic of Stupidity sez:
Welcome to Mr. Pee’s sad little world.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:40 pmWhy are you pulling assertions of ‘gracious’ leftwingers out of your rear?
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
One, I thougt you made it clear this was all “hypothetical”? Isn’t that why you posited a Romney presidency? Was that pulled “out of your rear”?
And two, just because YOU pull things out of your rear with frightening regularity, don’t assume everyone does. That’s called “projection”. I know you think it works for you, but it really doesn’t. It just makes you look stupid.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:41 pmJG > the President cannot block his own impeachment. If he does not cooperate, and 67 Senators vote to remove him, then a military guard is sent to remove him from the White House. Bush could refuse to leave the residence, in which case the place would be stormed by FBI and military too.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:42 pmm12 sez:
And you’re still an idiot. Congrats.
I’m not going to do your homework for you, jackass.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:42 pmBut when the Supreme Court ruled in 2000 in accordance with the rule of law, you claimed Bush stole the election!
The bolded text above is where you went wrong. If you’re honestly this clueless, go educate yourself. If you’re being deliberately obtuse, just go.
I am still waiting for an answer to this question!
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
I’m still looking for a question!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:42 pmHuh??? This makes no sense at all.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 29, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
Should I spell it out for you further? Liberals claimed that the voters of South Dakota elected a Democrat, and so the Republican governor should not be able to switch the seat if Tim Johnson died or resigned.
Yet if you impeached Bush/Cheney you are switching the seat of the Presidency!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:43 pmBut when the Supreme Court ruled in 2000 in accordance with the rule of law, you claimed Bush stole the election!
The bolded text above is where you went wrong. If you’re honestly this clueless, go educate yourself. If you’re being deliberately obtuse, just go.
I am still waiting for an answer to this question!
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
I know you desperately need to believe you’re right… BUT…
http://www.iknowwhatyoudidlastelection.com/bush-supreme-court.htm
July 29th, 2007 at 9:44 pmEverything, if you are trying to push Queen Pelosi into the Presidency!
I think if you are following this thread you would understand this isn’t about Nancy Pelosi. This is about dealing in a Constitutional way with serious over reaching and abuse of power, let alone law breaking. Congress has the duty to protect and defend the Constitution from Imperial Presidencies and abuse of power. It is all built in. Congress just has to stand up and do its part to set a precedent for future presidencies. This is about protecting our laws and protecting the rights of every single American, both now and in the future.
This isn’t about Nancy Pelosi.
If both Bush and Cheney are Impeached AND removed (the removed part isn’t likely to happen), then they have nobody to blame but themselves for the consequences of THEIR actions. Whoever moves into the Presidency at that point has just witnessed Congress and the Constitution in action and are not likely to follow in Bush’s footsteps. They will have their hands full with repairing all the damage of these two scoundrels.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:44 pmI’m still looking for a question!
Comment by spit take — July 29, 2007 @ 9:42 pm
Sure. On what grounds was what the Supreme Court did in 2000 illegal?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:44 pmComment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 29, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
TRoS, if we keep doing m12’s homework for him, how is he ever going to learn?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:46 pmSure. On what grounds was what the Supreme Court did in 2000 illegal?
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
Read my post above. Paste the URL into your browser and go read it, if you’ve the stomache to, which I don’t think you have.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:47 pmI thought OJ was guilty even thought the jury acquitted him.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:48 pmI know you desperately need to believe you’re right… BUT…
http://www.iknowwhatyoudidlastelection.com/bush-supreme-court.htm
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 29, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
I don’t need to believe I am right. I know I am. Nowhere in your link does it say what the Supreme Court did was illegal!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:48 pmTRoS, if we keep doing m12’s homework for him, how is he ever going to learn?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 29, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
if we don’t keep trying, he’ll never learn anything.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:48 pmIf Bush and Cheney were both removed, then a caretaker President and VP would fulfill the remaining 17 months of their term of office. McCain might agree to be caretaker President, since he will never be elected to that position.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:49 pmThis isn’t about Nancy Pelosi.
If both Bush and Cheney are Impeached AND removed (the removed part isn’t likely to happen), then they have nobody to blame but themselves for the consequences of THEIR actions. Whoever moves into the Presidency at that point has just witnessed Congress and the Constitution in action and are not likely to follow in Bush’s footsteps. They will have their hands full with repairing all the damage of these two scoundrels.
Comment by JG
I know that i’m12 will never grasp this and wouldn’t believe it because “power” is all he’s about but, you are absolutely correct. This has nothing to do with which party is in power, it has to do with the preservation of our republic.
If I thought the troll would actually do so, I’d admonish him to listen to Bruce Fein on that NPR program explaining why impeachment is the process by which the republic heals itself. It’s a real eye-opener, but a person’s mind also has to be open, and neocons are not known for open minds.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:51 pmif we don’t keep trying, he’ll never learn anything.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 29, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
He’s not here to learn!!
Remember…..dumber than a bag of hair.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:51 pmTRoS, if we keep doing m12’s homework for him, how is he ever going to learn?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 29, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
What homework? You’re just pulling out random liberal nonsense because you don’t like the decision.
The Supreme Court has been the final arbiter on the Constitution since the early 1800s!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:52 pmIf Bush and Cheney were both removed, then a caretaker President and VP would fulfill the remaining 17 months of their term of office. McCain might agree to be caretaker President, since he will never be elected to that position.
Comment by Jay Randal
Under the current terms of law, the successor would be the Speaker of the House. There is no provision for a “caretaker”. After Agnew resigned, Nixon appointed a non-threatening VP, who eventually succeeded him, but the Constitution doesn’t provide for a regent.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:53 pmRoe versus Wade was a legitimate decision.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:53 pmI think if you are following this thread you would understand this isn’t about Nancy Pelosi. This is about dealing in a Constitutional way with serious over reaching and abuse of power, let alone law breaking. Congress has the duty to protect and defend the Constitution from Imperial Presidencies and abuse of power. It is all built in. Congress just has to stand up and do its part to set a precedent for future presidencies. This is about protecting our laws and protecting the rights of every single American, both now and in the future.
It is about Nancy Pelosi. The only person here to suggest otherwise is JayRandal, who suggested that McCain fill the seat!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:57 pmm12 sez:
And in this case, The Supreme Court abused their authority to stop the recounting of Florida votes, essentially appoint Chimpy President.
You may not see anything wrong with this, but that’s because you’re a troll.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:57 pmThe Supreme Court has been the final arbiter on the Constitution since the early 1800s!
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
And all their decisions are good ones, right?
Plessy v. Ferguson comes to mind….
July 29th, 2007 at 9:58 pmJay,
Did you see above where I suggested Fred Thompson might take the presidency if Bush and Cheney were impeached?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:59 pmAnd all their decisions are good ones, right?
Plessy v. Ferguson comes to mind….
Comment by Zooey — July 29, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
Who said anything about good or bad? Bad things aren’t always illegal, such as income taxes!
July 29th, 2007 at 10:00 pmIf Bush and Cheney were both removed, then a caretaker President and VP would fulfill the remaining 17 months of their term of office. McCain might agree to be caretaker President, since he will never be elected to that position.
Comment by Jay Randal — July 29, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
Isn’t that sort of what happened with Gerald Ford? He was appointed to VP when Spiro Agnew resigned and confirmed by House and Senate, and then when Nixon resigned, moved up to the Presidency and appointed Nelson Rockefeller as VP, who was confirmed by House and Senate. Ford was never elected.. He then lost to Carter.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:00 pmHe then lost to Carter.
Comment by JG — July 29, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
That history is why I suppose my Thompson hypothesis is not a good one. He would likely go the way of Ford.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:02 pmTRoS, if we keep doing m12’s homework for him, how is he ever going to learn?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 29, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
if we don’t keep trying, he’ll never learn anything.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 29, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
You guys really think he’s capable of learning?
Oh, I get it — joke.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:03 pmAnd in this case, The Supreme Court abused their authority to stop the recounting of Florida votes, essentially appoint Chimpy President.
Sucks to be the Goracle, eh?
July 29th, 2007 at 10:04 pmWho said anything about good or bad? Bad things aren’t always illegal, such as income taxes!
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
Income taxes…..ooga booga
July 29th, 2007 at 10:04 pmRemember…..dumber than a bag of hair.
Comment by Zooey — July 29, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
LOL! I haven’t heard that one. So, is that worse than dumber than a bag of rocks? Dumber than a sack of hammers? I like yours better. I will have to remember that one.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:04 pmGummitch if the VP was replaced first, then the VP is replaced by a new one, then if President is replaced the new VP takes his place, then a new VP for him. It becomes a caretaker government till a new President and VP are elected. President Ford and his VP were a caretaker government. Ford ran for president in 1976, but was defeated by Carter.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:05 pmJG you are correct in post 149 > Ford was a caretaker President and then lost to Carter in 1976 election.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:07 pmOne troubling thing. If the House approved an impeachment trial to begin against Cheney in the Senate, Cheney, as president of the Senate would preside.
Comment by Mikael Rudolph — July 29, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
Please don’t make my head hurt.
Comment by Egreggious — July 29, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
According to the Constitution, the Chief Justice (Roberts) would preside.
I did not go through the chaff to determine whether someone else had offered this detail.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:07 pmWho said anything about good or bad? Bad things aren’t always illegal, such as income taxes!
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
My point is that if Plessy v. Ferguson were decided today, you’d be pleased as punch, and would believe whole-heartedly in it’s correctness.
Sheep.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:08 pmAnd in this case, The Supreme Court abused their authority to stop the recounting of Florida votes, essentially appoint Chimpy President.
You mean like how they abused their authority with the Texas Death Penalty and abortion?
July 29th, 2007 at 10:09 pmm12 sez:
Sucks to not have a rational rebuttal, doesn’t it?
July 29th, 2007 at 10:09 pmMy point is that if Plessy v. Ferguson were decided today, you’d be pleased as punch, and would believe whole-heartedly in it’s correctness.
Gore accepted the Supreme Court decision. Why can’t you?
July 29th, 2007 at 10:10 pmLOL! I haven’t heard that one. So, is that worse than dumber than a bag of rocks? Dumber than a sack of hammers? I like yours better. I will have to remember that one.
Comment by JG — July 29, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
It’s my thinking that a bag of hair is much dumber than bags of rocks or hammers. If one were carrying a bag of rocks or hammers, one might be going to a job, or about to build a wall.
There is certainly no point to carrying a bag of hair — hence it’s dumbness. :-)
You must have missed my earlier reference to m12 being dumber than a bag of toenails. :D
July 29th, 2007 at 10:10 pmIt is about Nancy Pelosi. The only person here to suggest otherwise is JayRandal, who suggested that McCain fill the seat!
Its about the process and ensuring that is is both preserved, protected, and showing the American people that it works.
These guys in office knew what they were doing all long. I know they have tried labeling all these abuses ‘necessary tools in the War on Terror’, but those are words and smoke. These are men with an agenda that is self serving. The American people are the ones that are paying the price, and it is dear. There are consequences for our actions and our choices. At least, that is what I try to teach my children every day. When you make a choice to cross the lines then you have to be prepared to suffer the consequences.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:11 pmI don’t need to believe I am right. I know I am. Nowhere in your link does it say what the Supreme Court did was illegal!
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
Apparently, the majority saw no irreparable harm in denying Gore his lawfully required recount.
Critics also argued that Court’s decision itself was a perversion of the Equal Protection Clause that it claimed to defend and contrary to the political question doctrine.
The decision has been widely discredited by the majority of legal scholars and law professors as a deeply flawed and politically motivated decision.
The decision itself was criticized by Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz, asserting in Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 that “the decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath.”
July 29th, 2007 at 10:11 pmGore accepted the Supreme Court decision. Why can’t you?
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
Do you take medication for your condition?
July 29th, 2007 at 10:11 pmSucks to not have a rational rebuttal, doesn’t it?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 29, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
Rebuttal to what? You have not offered a single point to explain why the Supreme Court decision was illegal!
July 29th, 2007 at 10:12 pmYou must have missed my earlier reference to m12 being dumber than a bag of toenails. :D
I will save that one as well!
July 29th, 2007 at 10:12 pmMy personal favorites are:
July 29th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
You have not offered a single point to explain why the Supreme Court decision was illegal!
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 10:12 pm
Apparently, the majority saw no irreparable harm in denying Gore his lawfully required recount.
Critics also argued that Court’s decision itself was a perversion of the Equal Protection Clause that it claimed to defend and contrary to the political question doctrine.
The decision has been widely discredited by the majority of legal scholars and law professors as a deeply flawed and politically motivated decision.
The decision itself was criticized by Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz, asserting in Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 that “the decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath.â€
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 29, 2007 @ 10:11 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 10:13 pmDoes anyone think we should impeach the Supreme Court justices who voted in Bush’s favor in 2000?
July 29th, 2007 at 10:15 pmGummitch if the VP was replaced first, then the VP is replaced by a new one, then if President is replaced the new VP takes his place, then a new VP for him. It becomes a caretaker government till a new President and VP are elected. President Ford and his VP were a caretaker government. Ford ran for president in 1976, but was defeated by Carter.
Comment by Jay Randal
Yes, Jay, if the VP is replaced that scenario could play out, but there is no provision for a “caretaker” government. If Cheney was impeached, convicted and removed, GWB could appoint a new VP. He would have to do that in full recognition that he was on his way out, which doesn’t sound even vaguely like the GWB we know.
Ford wasn’t chosen as a “caretaker.” Quite frankly, he was chosen as VP because Nixon didn’t think that anyone wanted someone as doofus as Ford to be President and because Ford represented a level of respectability that the Nixon White House utterly lacked. And, the truth is, Nixon was about 300% smarter than Bush and had a much more highly-refined political awareness.
It really isn’t a parallel situation. Agnew resigned, and Cheney wouldn’t do that in a million years. And Nixon resigned, ditto.
It will not be pretty, and offering up some form of “caretaker” presidency is dishonest and illegal. Bush and Cheney need to be removed for the sake of the Republic. The fact that a Democrat is currently next in line for the succession is truly irrelevant.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:15 pmDoes anyone think we should impeach the Supreme Court justices who voted in Bush’s favor in 2000?
Comment by Egreggious
There are no grounds for it.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:16 pmCan someone tell me where we made the transition from Bush “stole the election” to the Supreme Court decision being illegal? I missed that.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:16 pmApparently, the majority saw no irreparable harm in denying Gore his lawfully required recount.
Critics also argued that Court’s decision itself was a perversion of the Equal Protection Clause that it claimed to defend and contrary to the political question doctrine.
The decision has been widely discredited by the majority of legal scholars and law professors as a deeply flawed and politically motivated decision.
The decision itself was criticized by Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz, asserting in Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 that “the decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath.â€
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 29, 2007 @ 10:11 pm
Thank you for posting Alan Dershowitz’s beliefs as if he is gospel.
The rest is correct though. The Supreme Court as a final arbiter of the Constitution interpreted the Constitution in the way it believed.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:18 pmI was first able to vote for President in the 1976 election. I voted for Carter that year and in 1980 because I hated Ronald Reagan.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:18 pmm12 sez:
I’m not going to tell you again, m12.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:21 pmDO YOUR OWN DAMNED HOMEWORK.
Can someone tell me where we made the transition from Bush “stole the election†to the Supreme Court decision being illegal? I missed that.
Comment by Egreggious — July 29, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
m12
July 29th, 2007 at 10:21 pmMy dad used to beat me with a bat when I was a kid. I thought it was wrong but could do nothing about it because he was the final arbiter in my household.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:21 pmWhat was the decision anyway?I don’t remember that part. I just remember that Gore could have fought it but for the good of the country he put a stop to it. (Funny you don’t see other Administration officials putting the good of the country before ANYTHING they do…).
July 29th, 2007 at 10:22 pmDid the Supreme Court decide to stop the count? Or did they just throw it back to Florida and supported Florida stopping the count?
The people making the decision to suppress the count WERE corrupt. This stunk to high heaven. EVERY vote should ALWAYS be counted. Period. Whoever wins, wins, but this was not allowed to play out to its conclusion. This left such a pall and air of illegitimacy.
gummitch > if impeachment is played up as Pelosi getting into that position, then Republicans will not vote for impeachment. Best bet is to impeach Cheney and agree to a new VP who could then replace Bush. Cheney is Bush’s firewall, so if he goes then Bush is just a castrated President.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:22 pmComment by TripMaster Monkey — July 29, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
Bahahaha! You seem to operate under the assertion that anything that doesn’t pass TripMaster Monkey muster is illegal.
Good day to you, sir!
July 29th, 2007 at 10:22 pmOops.. Sorry TROS. Thanks for the info.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:23 pmThank you for posting Alan Dershowitz’s beliefs as if he is gospel.
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
Where did I say Dershowitz is gospel? Are you reading into my comments now? When “the majority” of legal scholars finds it flawed, what does that mean?
July 29th, 2007 at 10:24 pmBush is just a castrated President.
Comment by Jay Randal — July 29, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
For all intents and purposes, Bush is already a soprano, in both ways.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:25 pmI’ve heard that the Supreme Court could just flip a coin if they wanted to, and the decision would be legal.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:26 pmComment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
You just know this idjit wears a bowtie in honor of his hero… Tucker Carlson!
July 29th, 2007 at 10:26 pmJG > the Supreme Court overruled the Florida Court in 2000. Gore won the right for a full recount of votes by the Florida Court, but then Bush ran to the Supreme Court to stop it. He knew his dad owned 5 of the Justices or could persuade them to rule for Dubya.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:26 pmWhere did I say Dershowitz is gospel? Are you reading into my comments now? When “the majority†of legal scholars finds it flawed, what does that mean?
It means the decision is flawed.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:26 pmm12 sez:
Didn’t see the link, did you, dolt?
Can’t say I’m surprised.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:27 pm“Who said anything about good or bad? Bad things aren’t always illegal, such as income taxes!
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 10:00 pm”
Actually…. Those are ILLEGAL!
July 29th, 2007 at 10:27 pmI’ve heard that the Supreme Court could just flip a coin if they wanted to, and the decision would be legal.
Comment by Egreggious — July 29, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
Right. The Supremes decide what other do is legal or not, but who watches over them? Might be the Congress…
July 29th, 2007 at 10:29 pmCongress has the power to impeach Supreme Court justices.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:29 pmIn my opinion there should have been revote in Florida in 2000. A special election held to settle it between Bush and Gore, because lots of ballots were tainted. Even Buchanan stated most of his votes in Florida were really Gore’s votes.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:30 pmRight. The Supremes decide what other do is legal or not, but who watches over them? Might be the Congress…
Nobody. You can impeach them after the fact, but it doesn’t invalidate the ruling.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:30 pmCongress has the power to impeach Supreme Court justices.
I like that too. I read a good article a couple of days ago that actually argued for impeaching the Justices BEFORE impeaching Gonzales, Bush or CHeney. I don’t remember what the logic was because I was in a hurry and only glanced through it.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:31 pmRulings can be overturned.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:32 pmgummitch > if impeachment is played up as Pelosi getting into that position, then Republicans will not vote for impeachment. Best bet is to impeach Cheney and agree to a new VP who could then replace Bush. Cheney is Bush’s firewall, so if he goes then Bush is just a castrated President.
Comment by Jay Randal
I get your point, and it is very important that impeachment not be couched as a replacement of the monsters with a Dem. I’d be more than happy to see Cheney replaced with a true conservative, for example, and then GWB marched out the door.
If you think that Bush without Cheney is a castrato, though, you’re mistaken. In his own way, he’s just as scary at Cheney, because he’s convinced that God has placed him in the presidency.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:35 pmI have to go, folks. Keep beating on this smary little creep as long as you want, or until your arms get tired.
Legality, like morality, or ethics, are only human inventions. Standards shift, then shift back. The Supreme court once ruled slavery to be legal. Go figure. Was that the proper decision, m12? Wish you could own your own slaves? Go figure. m12 argues tiny little edges because it’s the closest he comes to having any life at all.
The Federal govt broke every treaty it ever made w/ the American Indians. If the govt chooses not to police itself, what recourse does the plaintiff have? Of course, Li’l Emmie, as I like to call him, wil sneer and brush all of this aside in a masterful condescending matter.
This is not unlike someone arguing endlessly that the carnage in Iraq is okay because Bush didn’t lie. If people don’t have consciences, they don’t have ‘em. I look forward to the day m12 gets caught doing something really vile.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:37 pmThanks, TRoS. Excellent parting statement.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:39 pmJG > Every impeachment requires 2/3 majority of the Senators to vote YES, so that means 67 Senators. There are some Republicans in the Senate that are hinting that they might agree to impeach Cheney, if a compromise VP can be agreed to in advance. Whoever gets that position is a dead dog in the 2008 election anyways.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:39 pmGoodnight, TRoS!
July 29th, 2007 at 10:40 pmI differ with the folks here who are saying the Dems are spineless.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:41 pmThey have a calculated strategy that is aiming at a super majority in 08.
They aren’t going to impeach because they don’t have the votes, so they are going to dig enough dirt through hearings to bury the repugnicants in 08.
They don’t think they’ll lose enough votes by not impeaching to offset the votes they’ll gain by exposing the rotten corpse of this administration for the next fifteen months.
gummitch > Bush is scared to death about possibility of Cheney being removed, because the new VP might decide to help Senate to get rid of Bush himself. Ford did that to Nixon.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:42 pmThe Supreme court once ruled slavery to be legal. Go figure. Was that the proper decision, m12? Wish you could own your own slaves?
Actually, the founding fathers did that.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:42 pmRUCerious, but what if there have seriously rigged the system, through more sophisticated versions of the caging lists and rigged electronic voting machines. There is no way to prove anything. This is what I am afraid of. I have watched a couple interviews with Greg Palast and he seriously warns that they have ALREADY stolen the 2008 election.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:45 pmWhat are your thoughts on that?
Does anyone know the details of the Dred Scott case?
July 29th, 2007 at 10:46 pmI am pushing the idea to the Congress to get rid of Cheney, then replace him with someone like McCain who is no threat to Democrat or GOPer candidates in 2008 election. Also at that point to inform Bush that he is no longer calling the shots in DC.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:47 pmOne quick thought before beddy-bye and that is that we really need to begin thinking back and walking through everything that’s occurred from 911 until now- things which didn’t seem logical to a logical, moral mind – things which had the appearance of being out of phase but the WH had some quick talking point to attempt to dissolve discussion and/or scrutiny – - and then we moved on to the next debacle or issue where the same MO prevailed. Until this moment, where suddenly 6 years of fallout has crystallized into this one moment of awareness. This is a pivotal time for this country, right now in this moment. We know that we’ve been duped. We know that we’ve been had by the very people we trusted the most.
We now know that our Constitution has been violated in the most heinous of ways – this is becoming more irrefutable with each passing day. We can no longer afford to play a game of delusion, of wishful thinking that we are wrong about what our guts is telling us about our democracy being hijacked. It’s all true and was so easily contrived and made plausible to us because we had “faith” – “faith in those elected to represent us in this democracy” – and these criminal neocons counted on precisely that fact. We, americans, have always been a country of faith, and hope and a desire toward authenticity and morality. They needed this degree of faith and trust in order to achieve their diabolical ends.
I’d say that the “time is here” to move swiftly through any representative who is available to listen to our plea. Constitutional scholars are sounding the death nell on democracy right now. It’s time to heed the wisdom of their expertise. It’s time to listen to Fein and begin making calls to everyone in Congress for the swift impeachment of Gonzales, Cheney and Bush – before they accomplish the goal of destroying our constitution and our democracy. It’s time for the people to stand up, unafraid, and regain the rule of law in this country of ours.
To paraphrase Franklin: “A man who woud trade his freedoms for a modicum of security, deserves neither – freedom and security”. I content that we are in the process of losing both – at this moment in time.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:48 pmgummitch > Bush is scared to death about possibility of Cheney being removed, because the new VP might decide to help Senate to get rid of Bush himself. Ford did that to Nixon.
Comment by Jay Randal
Well, maybe. And?
How does that work to anyone’s advantage?
July 29th, 2007 at 10:49 pmDoes anyone know the details of the Dred Scott case?
Slavery was legal well before the Dred Scott ruling. Taney ruled that blacks could not be citizens under our Constitution (even while in a free state) and gutten the Congressional Missouri compromise, which barred slavery in northern states.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:52 pmDoes anyone know if the Dred Scott decision upheld slavery as a legal institution?
July 29th, 2007 at 10:53 pmPost 210 gummitch > it worked fine, because Ford lost big to Carter in 1976. Whoever takes Cheney’s place would be tainted by him. McCain has a dream to be President, so even if it was for one year he would be happy. Lieberman might take the VP slot under McCain for a year or so too. Both of them are widely disliked, so they would be gone in January 2009.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:56 pmPost 210 gummitch > it worked fine, because Ford lost big to Carter in 1976.
Hmm? Carter won by similar margins to Bush in 2004!
July 29th, 2007 at 10:59 pmThanks Mr. President for keeping the US safe from a domestic attack for 2100+ days. I sleep very at nigth knowing you and Cheney “got my back”.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:59 pmDoes anyone know if Bush won by a sizable majority in 2004?
July 29th, 2007 at 11:00 pmPlus think of both McCain and Lieberman gone from the Senate forever. It opens up both their seats for new blood.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:00 pmEgreg > Bush supposedly won big in 2004, but Kerry did not contest it.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:02 pmPlus think of both McCain and Lieberman gone from the Senate forever. It opens up both their seats for new blood.
Comment by Jay Randal — July 29, 2007 @ 11:00 pm
That may very well be why the scenario you imagine would not happen.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:02 pmDoes anyone know if the Dred Scott decision upheld slavery as a legal institution?
Comment by Egreggious — July 29, 2007 @ 10:53 pm
Dred Scott ruled that those of African descent could never become citizens of the US, slaves or not, and Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in US territories.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:03 pmHypothetically though, if Romney wins, what will you say?
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
I’ll say that Mitt is gonna need to start lifting weights to prepare for all the vetoes he will deliver, because he will be working with a Congress that is overwhelmingly Democrat.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:04 pmThanks Mr. President for keeping the US safe from a domestic attack for 2100+ days. I sleep very at nigth knowing you and Cheney “got my backâ€.
Comment by Flaco
9/11 occured during the B/C watch. Well after the 100 day mark.
Idiot.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:05 pmThank you, Zooey. It’s nice to know these things.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:06 pmHypothetically though, if Romney wins, what will you say?
Comment by m12
Romney is a Mormon, Hillary a Baptist.
The RWN dislike Mormons more than Baptists.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:07 pmComment by La Cuckoo Rot Ya — July 29, 2007 @ 11:07 pm
And they dislike taxes and Clintons more than Mormons.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:11 pmEgreg > Bush supposedly won big in 2004, but Kerry did not contest it.
Comment by Jay Randal
Nope. Bush won by the smallest margin of any sitting President since 1828, assuming that he won at all.
The US has never failed to re-elect a President during a war, but in 2004 we came very close.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:11 pmI am just about at my wits end!!!
Nancy Pelosi said this administration was going to be held accountable; that there would be no more blank check for Bush, and that there would be a ‘Truman Commission’ to investigate the waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq. And she also said that impeachment was off the table.
Now I could be mistaken but, isn’t that like telling a known criminal that if they get caught breaking the law they won’t go to jail? Where does Nancy Pelosi get the authority to pre-empt judicial process and oversight duties of Congress? And now Rangel believes the devil you know is better than the one you don’t? IT’S THE SAME DEVIL!!!! NO BETTER, NO WORSE!!!!
It’s just unbelievable! I thought that the up is down/war is peace- alternate universe of the Bush Admin was about as whack as it could get. There have been inquiries, investigations, committee hearings, subpoenas (blatantly flaunted); and to show for it all, one trial with a commuted sentence.
No impeachments, no censures, not even a vote of no confidence for cripes sakes!!
What on earth is it going to take to have justice? How many laws have to be broken, how many times, and how blatantly, before we get justice? When will the subpoenas for Rice, Rove, and the rest, be enforced? How long before Congress says bunk to ‘executive privelage’ and calls the Sergeant at Arms?
Come September, Congress best defund Bush’s failed Iraq policy, de-authorize the Iraq war resolution, and redeploy our troops. Congress has the power to do it! There have been enough failed attempts to allow Bush to change course and save face.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:11 pmENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!! IT’S OVER!!! IT’S NOT OUR TROOPS FAULT BUSH AND THE IRAQI GOVT. CAN’T PERFORM! WE MUST, WE MUST, WE MUST BRING THEM HOME!!!
Egreg > old Joe Lieberman would sacrifice his Senate seat for a year or so as VP. He really could care less about the needs of CT’s population.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:13 pmAnd they dislike taxes and Clintons more than Mormons.
Comment by m12
Mr President, your conservative cohort knows, admittedly, nothing about Jesus. What does that tell you?
July 29th, 2007 at 11:14 pmNope. Bush won by the smallest margin of any sitting President since 1828, assuming that he won at all.
The US has never failed to re-elect a President during a war, but in 2004 we came very close.
Never mind the fact that both Johnson and Truman would not have been re-elected if they had bothered running.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:15 pmHe really could care less about the needs of CT’s population.
Comment by Jay Randal — July 29, 2007 @ 11:13 pm
But would a real Democrat take his place in the Senate? (Sorry, I don’t know if CT’s governor is a D or R). The Republican/Independent alliance might not want to risk that. They need Joe’s vote in the Senate.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:15 pmIt’s pretty sad when a Congressman doesn’t know the meaning of IMPEACHMENT!!!
July 29th, 2007 at 11:16 pmMr President, your conservative cohort knows, admittedly, nothing about Jesus. What does that tell you?
I dunno…maybe that he is not a religious man?
July 29th, 2007 at 11:17 pmDoes anyone here know what a fact is?
July 29th, 2007 at 11:17 pmI think Rangel must be dumber than a bucket of hair. Cheney is already president – and he likes to hide in the shadows – full sunlight would expose him as the vampire that he is – wooden stake please!
July 29th, 2007 at 11:17 pmm12 relates money to religion. Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers.
Yet m12 speaks of God, and Religion, yet loves money.
WTF?
I see Hagee, a Texas minister says the Anti-Christ will be against war.
Satan, apparently is peaceful. And Jesus was a materialist greedster.
How can you, m12, possibly rationalize this religious/capitalist quandry?
July 29th, 2007 at 11:18 pmgummitch > Bush won with way more votes in 2004, because in 2000 Gore actually won with 500,000 more votes nationwide. His losing Florida gave it to Bush. In 2004 Bush creamed Kerry in electoral votes and in votes nationwide. He supposedly had 3 million more votes than Kerry did. I do believe Bush cheated, but that is another item for a different thread.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:18 pmPost 210 gummitch > it worked fine, because Ford lost big to Carter in 1976. Whoever takes Cheney’s place would be tainted by him. McCain has a dream to be President, so even if it was for one year he would be happy. Lieberman might take the VP slot under McCain for a year or so too. Both of them are widely disliked, so they would be gone in January 2009.
Comment by Jay Randal
Yeah, well, whatever. Cheney will not go quietly into that good night and by the time we drag him, kicking and screaming, out of office, there will be no time left in which to impeach Bush.
Your scenario seems to be designed to somehow placate the Republics for a year or so, and is based on the assumption that they will just lie down and get walked on. Sorry, but that just isn’t going to happen. Ever.
Bush is convinced that he has been placed in the White House by God. Nixon never had any such delusions, and parallels between the two are nonexistent. Neither Bush nor Cheney will leave without being dragged out, and rosy scenarios in which McCain and Lieberman are lambs to the slaughter are just absurd.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:18 pmI dunno…maybe that he is not a religious man?
Comment by m12
Yet he calls himself a conservative. Hello.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:18 pmm12 relates money to religion. Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers.
Yet m12 speaks of God, and Religion, yet loves money.
WTF?
I see Hagee, a Texas minister says the Anti-Christ will be against war.
Satan, apparently is peaceful. And Jesus was a materialist greedster.
How can you, m12, possibly rationalize this religious/capitalist quandry?
I think you are confused, good sir. The religious crowd and the fairtax crowd are separate factions.
Sort of like the abortion NARAL crowd and the wall street bankers in your party.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:20 pmDoes anyone here know what a fact is?
Comment by Egreggious
A repeatable result.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:21 pmI have not read through all the comments, but I assume that someone made the point that impeachment is NOT removal from office.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:21 pmThank you, Zooey. It’s nice to know these things.
Comment by Egreggious — July 29, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
You’re welcome, Egg. :)
July 29th, 2007 at 11:21 pmSort of like the abortion NARAL crowd and the wall street bankers in your party. Comment by m12
Show me where I claimed to be a Democrat.
The anti-christ against war is from Rev. Hagee of Texas.
Jesus, of course, was communal, as were the pilgrims that landed on plymouth rock.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:23 pm“gummitch > if impeachment is played up as Pelosi getting into that position, then Republicans will not vote for impeachment.”
If we impeached Chaney and then Bush, any Republican, after all the evidence is presented, voted not to convict, then they would kiss their political career goodby. I thoroughly believe that, once under Impeachment, the evidence against both Chaney and Bush will be so totally damning no rational adult would be able to stand by them. One has to remember, once under impeachment, Bush can’t use Executive Privilege. I don’t even think he can use it if Chaney is Impeached.
Can you even imagine what nasty stuff we will find when we are finally able to turn over all those rocks? Once their underlings are no longer protected by Executive Privilege. If they refuse to talk then, they will be thrown in jail until they do. That’s what they did to Susan McDougall in the Clinton mess. She spent over a year in jail because she would not testify against Clinton.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:24 pm#I have not read through all the comments, but I assume that someone made the point that impeachment is NOT removal from office.
Comment by Administrator1
Impeach, as I thought was well known, only means to charge someone.
If you get a speeding ticket your impeached with speeding.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:25 pmLa Cuckoo Rot Ya
Lots of the comments don’t seem to reflect that knowledge, including the Congressman.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:28 pmgummitch > Bush won with way more votes in 2004, because in 2000 Gore actually won with 500,000 more votes nationwide. His losing Florida gave it to Bush. In 2004 Bush creamed Kerry in electoral votes and in votes nationwide. He supposedly had 3 million more votes than Kerry did. I do believe Bush cheated, but that is another item for a different thread.
Comment by Jay Randal
Incumbent presidents almost always win. Incumbent “wartime” presidents always win. As Glen Greenwald writes: “just as was true in 2000, Bush’s 2004 victory was dependent upon a narrow victory in a single state, this time in Ohio.”
Bush certainly did not “cream” Kerry in electoral votes. He had exactly 35 more votes than Kerry in the electoral college. 286-251.
I’m not sure why you want to make the 2004 election election into a landslide for Bush; the facts do not support you.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:28 pmNope. Bush won by the smallest margin of any sitting President since 1828, assuming that he won at all.
That is what I thought. I think it is pretty clear that there are valid reasons to question whether Bush actually won that election. Here is some of the investigative work Greg Palast has done as well as Robert Kennedy Jr.:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won.php
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/61/20209
Report by Rep. Conyers:
July 29th, 2007 at 11:28 pmhttp://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010605Y.shtml
“I have not read through all the comments, but I assume that someone made the point that impeachment is NOT removal from office.”
Impeachment alone is not removal from office. Impeachment and conviction are removal from office.
On the other hand, I believe that even if Chaney and Bush were not convicted, they would be so compromised by what came to light during the trial, they would be hard put to remain in office. If they did remain in office, I believe the only Republicans still in office after the 2008 election would be the Senators who were not up for reelection.
I don’t even care if they convict. I just want them both impeached for two reasons. The first is to restore our dignity in the world by showing that we really do care about the constitution and the rule of law. The second is that through impeachment we will finally get to the bottom of all the crimes committed by the Bush Crime Family. Then once they are out of office, they can be criminally charged and sent to jail. That would be fitting justice.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:29 pmShow me where I claimed to be a Democrat.
The anti-christ against war is from Rev. Hagee of Texas.
Jesus, of course, was communal, as were the pilgrims that landed on plymouth rock.
I apologize, good sir, if you are not, but many people on this site tend to support Democratic Presidential candidiates even if they are not officially Democrats.
Wall street, of course, knows this, and so they are hedging their bets. Hillary might have abandoned them, but Chuck Schumer will sink anything that goes through a Dim senate!
July 29th, 2007 at 11:29 pmStep 1 = Impeachment (by House)
July 29th, 2007 at 11:31 pmStep 2 = Trial and removal (by Senate) (This would be my favorite part..)
Lots of the comments don’t seem to reflect that knowledge, including the Congressman.
Comment by Administrator1 — July 29, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
I think it’s easy to get confused because we don’t often have to make the distinction. I can usely tell from the context which a person means. If not, I just ask.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:31 pmLots of the comments don’t seem to reflect that knowledge, including the Congressman.
Comment by Administrator1
I totally agree =)
July 29th, 2007 at 11:31 pmI’m not sure why you want to make the 2004 election election into a landslide for Bush; the facts do not support you.
********
July 29th, 2007 at 11:31 pmAnd even if that were true, he certainly spent all of his “political capital” and more.
*usually*
July 29th, 2007 at 11:31 pmPost 237 gummitch > I would rather have a half victory of getting rid of Cheney, then to have nothing. If both Bush and Cheney remain for 17 more months, then they might attack Iran setting off WWIII and getting millions of us killed. Pelosi thinks we just need to vote for more Democrats in November 2008, but we could all be dead by then. Plus how would that hold Bush and Cheney accountable since they walk free in January 2009?
July 29th, 2007 at 11:32 pmmommy12:
I saw earlier where you were harassing someone here about answering a question you asked, even though it was not clear what your question was.
So, if you are so big on demanding answers to questions, why have you not answered the questions I have posed to you?
July 29th, 2007 at 11:32 pmWall street, of course, knows this, and so they are hedging their bets. Hillary might have abandoned them, but Chuck Schumer will sink anything that goes through a Dim senate!
Comment by m12
Jesus was not a capitalist. Hillary is. George Bush is. I could care less what Chuck Schumer says. The Pivot men, in congress, today are Feingold and Lieberman both Independents.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:34 pmIt doesn’t matter if they are convicted. Just hearings to determine Article of Impeachment would be enough.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:34 pmFeingold is a Democrat by official affiliation, I believe.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:36 pmgummitch I am NOT making Bush’s election into a landslide vote, but all the TV news channels made it look that way. Yes Bush cheated big in Ohio, but Kerry rolled over like a kicked dog. He contested nothing.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:36 pmComment by bilbobaggins — July 29, 2007 @ 11:32 pm
I apologize, Mr. Baggins. Can you post the comment number?
July 29th, 2007 at 11:36 pmgummitch I am NOT making Bush’s election into a landslide vote, but all the TV news channels made it look that way. Yes Bush cheated big in Ohio, but Kerry rolled over like a kicked dog. He contested nothing.
Comment by Jay Randal — July 29, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
You often hear that Bush received more votes in 2004 than any president in history. Of course, the population of the US has been growing, so it makes sense he would get more votes than George Washington. Also there was no strong third party candidate. The candidate with the second most votes in history was John Kerry.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:38 pmIt doesn’t matter if they are convicted. Just hearings to determine Article of Impeachment would be enough.
Comment by Administrator1
Perhaps you are correct. Time is a Judge afterall.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:38 pmgummitch I am NOT making Bush’s election into a landslide vote, but all the TV news channels made it look that way. Yes Bush cheated big in Ohio, but Kerry rolled over like a kicked dog. He contested nothing.
Comment by Jay Randal
Again, well, whatever. Kerry was a craptastic candidate and should have occasionally stood up on his hind legs.
But, honestly, I have no idea what this has to do with anything, especially what it has to do with impeachment.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:39 pmJesus was not a capitalist. Hillary is. George Bush is. I could care less what Chuck Schumer says. The Pivot men, in congress, today are Feingold and Lieberman both Independents.
Why would you not care what Schumer says? Half the Democrats in Congress are empty suits who do what Schumer commands.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:39 pmPost #226 redux:
I am just about at my wits end!!!
Nancy Pelosi said this administration was going to be held accountable; that there would be no more blank check for Bush, and that there would be a ‘Truman Commission’ to investigate the waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq. And she also said that impeachment was off the table.
Now I could be mistaken but, isn’t that like telling a known criminal that if they get caught breaking the law they won’t be CHARGED? Where does Nancy Pelosi get the authority to pre-empt judicial process and oversight duties of Congress?
July 29th, 2007 at 11:40 pmAnd now Rangel believes the devil you know is better than the one you don’t? IT’S THE SAME DEVIL!!!! NO BETTER, NO WORSE!!!!
Wall street, of course, knows this, and so they are hedging their bets. Hillary might have abandoned them, but Chuck Schumer will sink anything that goes through a Dim senate!
Comment by m12
Wall street does not operate on religion. If you look at where the money is going, today, you would see it leaning left.
Or Hedging their bet, as you say.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:40 pmLa Cuckoo Rot Ya
Thanks for responding. I feel like a voice crying out in the wilderness!
July 29th, 2007 at 11:40 pmWhy would you not care what Schumer says? Half the Democrats in Congress are empty suits who do what Schumer commands.
Comment by m12
I already answered that. =)
July 29th, 2007 at 11:42 pmThanks for responding. I feel like a voice crying out in the wilderness!
Comment by Administrator1 — July 29, 2007 @ 11:40 pm
Wilderness. Blogosphere. Same thing.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:43 pm“Hillary/Obama/Gore/Edwards wins.”
Not likely. Fred Thompson is going to be the next president of these united states.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:43 pmWilderness. Blogosphere. Same thing.
Comment by Egreggious — July 29, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
lol Well, it is wild!
July 29th, 2007 at 11:44 pmThanks for responding. I feel like a voice crying out in the wilderness!
Comment by Administrator1
LoL.
Does the universe hear a tree or a human fall?
Probably not. But the waves still persist, vacuum or not =)
July 29th, 2007 at 11:44 pm“If you look at where the money is going, today, you would see it leaning left.”
It always does. Goldman Sachs is a bunch of libs.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:44 pmJesus was not a capitalist. Hillary is. George Bush is. I could care less what Chuck Schumer says. The Pivot men, in congress, today are Feingold and Lieberman both Independents.
Why would you not care what Schumer says? Half the Democrats in Congress are empty suits who do what Schumer commands.
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 11:39 pm
As opposed to all those ‘rugged individualists’ and ‘independent thinkers’ within the horseshit GOP ?
July 29th, 2007 at 11:44 pmDoes anyone know if it’s the left half or the right half of Democrats that do what Schumer commands?
July 29th, 2007 at 11:45 pmRe: #272,
Brassmark,
July 29th, 2007 at 11:45 pmYou are soooooo on crack!
Not likely. Fred Thompson is going to be the next president of these united states.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — July 29, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
*******
July 29th, 2007 at 11:45 pmOnly if his wife says it’s ok.
Not likely. Fred Thompson is going to be the next president of these united states. Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS
A Hollywood liberal with a cleavage laden wife!!
LOL!!
July 29th, 2007 at 11:45 pmgummitch > we are both bantering around the margins of impeachment. I believe they only way to get Cheney or Bush or both of them out is to cut a deal with the Republicans. As for McCain: he actually would believe if he took Bush’s place, then he could win in 2008 election, but John is deluded about that > he would lose big. But heck why not use the old man for a year or so!
July 29th, 2007 at 11:45 pmWe impeach Cheney, Bush would just appoint some other corrupt asshole, who would then take over after he gets impeached.
It would be Ford all over again (No, I’m not saying Ford was a corrupt asshole)
July 29th, 2007 at 11:46 pm“Yes Bush cheated big in Ohio”
Pathetic. But they didn’t in ‘06?
July 29th, 2007 at 11:46 pmAware of their impotence they rave at all the world.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:46 pmIt always does. Goldman Sachs is a bunch of libs.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS
Capitalism requires liberalism.
How many times must I say this?
July 29th, 2007 at 11:47 pm“Hillary/Obama/Gore/Edwards wins.â€
Not likely. Fred Thompson is going to be the next president of these united states.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — July 29, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
Maybe on Law and Order ……..That’s about it , Assmask …..
July 29th, 2007 at 11:47 pmBrassmark,
You are soooooo on crack!
——-
I bought it from Obama.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:47 pmJay Randal ,
We will never get them out. Exposing them for what they are will be enough.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:48 pmApparently there is someone else believes Bush will appoint Thompson as his VP before he (Bush) himself resigns.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:48 pm“Maybe on Law and Order”
Thompson is going to f**k Hillary’s P***y and become president.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:48 pmRangle is wrong. Fein argued for impeaching BOTH Bush and Cheney. They should do it together, just impeach the bums and toss em out on their rear ends.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:48 pmDoes anyone know if it’s the left half or the right half of Democrats that do what Schumer commands?
A bit of both, actually. He managed to direct both factions for all those judicial filibusters.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:49 pmPathetic. But they didn’t in ‘06?
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS
http://rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfgate.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Farticle.cgi%3Ffile%3D%2Fc%2Fa%2F2007%2F07%2F28%2FVOTING.TMP%26type%3Dprintable
Voting machines hacked
July 29th, 2007 at 11:49 pm“Exposing them for what they are will be enough.”
The more hearings the Democrats have, the lower the approval rating of the congress goes.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:49 pm“They should do it together, just impeach the bums and toss em out on their rear ends.”
Pelosi said impeachment is off the table.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:52 pmBrassmask from 3DHS
That’s because they haven’t used all the tools at their disposal. The Attorney General will be a good test case. He will be impeached AND convicted.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:52 pmComment by VerbalKint — July 29, 2007 @ 11:04 pm
Excellent answer.
Bilbobaggins, it’s good to see that you’re sticking with us, at least temporarily. A couple of days ago you were ready to give up on TP:)
July 29th, 2007 at 11:52 pmAdministrator > Bush and Cheney do not seem to care about being exposed about anything. They seem to find it amusing, but if Congress could prove that Bush or Cheney had Pat Tillman murdered, then that might cause big problems for both of them.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:52 pm“Voting machines hacked”
By the liberal group Acorn.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:52 pmDoes anyone here know if it’s more important to have accountability in our government, or to have a Congress with a high approval rating?
July 29th, 2007 at 11:53 pmAs opposed to all those ‘rugged individualists’ and ‘independent thinkers’ within the horseshit GOP ?
Essentially, yeah. Those fools wasted the opportunities present in the 109th Congress.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:53 pm#293 – Brass
http://mediamatters.org/items/200707250003
Emphasis added.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:53 pm“He will be impeached AND convicted.”
You’re delusional. The Dems are totally impotent.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:54 pm“If you look at where the money is going, today, you would see it leaning left.â€
It always does. Goldman Sachs is a bunch of libs.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — July 29, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
Joshua Bolten , George Herbert Walker IV , Robert Zoellick , and Henry Paulson are all Goldman Sachs alumni ; and you’re claiming it’s a “bunch of libs” ?
How did you teach your ass to speak ?
July 29th, 2007 at 11:54 pmBy the liberal group Acorn.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS
Im sovereign 3Dhs.
I have no affiliation
July 29th, 2007 at 11:54 pmDoes anyone here not know that Pelosi said impeachment is off the table?
July 29th, 2007 at 11:55 pmDoes anyone here know if it’s more important to have accountability in our government, or to have a Congress with a high approval rating?
Comment by Egreggious — July 29, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
I feel strongly about accountability. However, our rightwing authoritarian friends would probably prefer a Congress with a high approval rating.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:55 pm“Maybe on Law and Orderâ€
Thompson is going to f**k Hillary’s P***y and become president.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — July 29, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
Voting is now obsolete , Assmask ?
July 29th, 2007 at 11:56 pmAnd their pleas for mercy will go unanswered for they are marked by their wickedness.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:56 pmonal. The Dems are totally impotent.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS
So is the rubberstamp GOP!!
LMAO!!
July 29th, 2007 at 11:56 pmAdministrator > Bush and Cheney do not seem to care about being exposed about anything. They seem to find it amusing, but if Congress could prove that Bush or Cheney had Pat Tillman murdered, then that might cause big problems for both of them.
Comment by Jay Randal — July 29, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
********
I’m sure it would, Jay.
Facing public disgrace and possible jail time might be enough to wipe the smirks off both of their faces. They might not seem to care now, but let the impeachment hearings begin!
July 29th, 2007 at 11:56 pmEmphasis added.
Comment by Zooey — July 29, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
I know you addressed that comment specifically to Brass. Is it OK if I read it too? ;)
July 29th, 2007 at 11:57 pmonal. The Dems are totally impotent.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS
So is the rubberstamp GOP!!
LMAO!!
Hardly.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:57 pm“Goldman Sachs alumni ; and you’re claiming it’s a “bunch of libs†?”
Yes it is.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:57 pmMy doctor said I was only partially impotent.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:58 pmEither they learn to get along and work for the people or they get no pork.
The house is evenly divided as was planned, by the people!! =)
July 29th, 2007 at 11:58 pmAs opposed to all those ‘rugged individualists’ and ‘independent thinkers’ within the horseshit GOP ?
Essentially, yeah. Those fools wasted the opportunities present in the 109th Congress.
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
What “opportunities” ?
July 29th, 2007 at 11:58 pmThe chance to rubber-stamp everything for Chimpy McFlighsuit ?
They did ………..Shows you how much the horseshit GOP knows or cares.
Comment by MCMetal — July 29, 2007 @ 11:54 pm
Democratic-Leaning Companies
UBS: 72.7 percent to Democrats
Citigroup: 66.6 percent to Democrats
Goldman Sachs: 63.4 percent to Democrats
Lehman Brothers: 63 percent to Democrats
Morgan Stanley: 54 percent to Democrats
Republican-Leaning Companies
Bear Sterns: 87.6 percent to Republicans
Merrill Lynch: 66.7 percent to Republicans
Deutsche Bank: 62.2 percent to Republicans
Credit Suisse: 57.5 percent to Republicans
Morgan is the only one that’s shifted; the rest were all Dimocrat even in 2004.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:58 pmThe Hoi Palloi has spoken.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:58 pmBy the liberal group Acorn.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS
Im sovereign 3Dhs.
I have no affiliation
—————-
Good for you. Welcome to our country. But if you want election fraud, don’t ignore the liberal group Acorn.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:59 pmonal. The Dems are totally impotent.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS
So is the rubberstamp GOP!!
LMAO!!
Hardly.
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
Wow, that’s quite a compelling argument…….
July 29th, 2007 at 11:59 pmWhat “opportunities†?
The chance to rubber-stamp everything for Chimpy McFlighsuit ?
They did ………..Shows you how much the horseshit GOP knows or cares.
No, they didn’t at all, else the Bush tax cuts would have been made permanent and a lot more nominations would have passed.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:59 pm“Voting is now obsolete , Assmask ?”
You’re a dumb one. Instead of kicking Hillary’s ass, Thompson is going to f**k her p***y.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:00 amMorgan is the only one that’s shifted; the rest were all Dimocrat even in 2004. Comment by m12
I can only say. HAH!
The people have spoken!!
July 30th, 2007 at 12:01 amComment by MCMetal — July 29, 2007 @ 11:54 pm
Democratic-Leaning Companies
UBS: 72.7 percent to Democrats
Citigroup: 66.6 percent to Democrats
Goldman Sachs: 63.4 percent to Democrats
Lehman Brothers: 63 percent to Democrats
Morgan Stanley: 54 percent to Democrats
Republican-Leaning Companies
Bear Sterns: 87.6 percent to Republicans
Merrill Lynch: 66.7 percent to Republicans
Deutsche Bank: 62.2 percent to Republicans
Credit Suisse: 57.5 percent to Republicans
Morgan is the only one that’s shifted; the rest were all Dimocrat even in 2004.
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 11:58 pm
How many of those companies decide direction based upon the employees and not their Board of Directors ?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:02 amIs FAUX Comedy Channel’s GOP propogandist pushing agenda the result of polls taken of the workers , or Rupert Murdick’s semi-gay fascination with the GOP and the memory of Ronnie Retard ?
Morgan is the only one that’s shifted; the rest were all Dimocrat even in 2004. Comment by m12
Ya idiot, I am working for the Lord. I get no paycheck.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:02 amDoes anyone here know if it’s more important to have accountability in our government, or to have a Congress with a high approval rating?
———–
And if the 14% confidence level of the Democrat congress causes it to flip back to the GOP?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:02 amI hope Fred and Hillary use protection. I know Fred’s opposed to it in theory, but I think when it comes right down to it….
July 30th, 2007 at 12:03 amIs FAUX Comedy Channel’s GOP propogandist pushing agenda the result of polls taken of the workers , or Rupert Murdick’s semi-gay fascination with the GOP and the memory of Ronnie Retard ?
——–
Nice rebuttal there McStupid. Are you retarded?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:04 amm12 has just been tricked into exposing his quasi religious, but fascist roots.
Just like Mr President has admitted he knows nothing of Jesus.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:04 am“I apologize, Mr. Baggins. Can you post the comment number?
Comment by m12″
No, since it was on another thread. But I’ll ask it again.
If you think that nothing illegal or bad happened when Pat Tillman was killed, why is Bush claiming Executive Privilege to keep from releasing documents on the investigation of his death?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:04 amDoes anyone else here know if it’s more important to have accountability in our government, or to have a Congress with a high approval rating?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:04 ambartlebee – glad you’re here… are you still?… merlin?…
i seem to be the only one who thinks as i posted @#34…
i wondered what you think:
rangel, according to link, was speaking on CNN’s “Late Editionâ€â€¦
surely there’s a video clip… it would be worth it to see
this exchange in context…
it sounds to me as if rangel is attempting some humor,
some levity into the conversation…
they can’t come out and say it’s gonna happen, not yet…
they are doing so much to gather information and evidence…
i have a feeling they are waiting for the massive amount of
July 30th, 2007 at 12:05 amwrongdoings to get out to the public…
they need the people behind them to get the ball rolling…
sure wish they could start before this august recess…
Comment by katy — July 29, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
…
How many of those companies decide direction based upon the employees and not their Board of Directors ?
IF you want to talk about Goldman Sachs’ leadership, well, Corzine and Robert Rubin were both former chariman and became Democratic Politicians.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:06 amm12
Where do you get your figures?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:06 amComment by Egreggious — July 30, 2007 @ 12:04 am
The public doesn’t see it as accountabilty. They see it as political theator. What happened to all those programs the Dems pleged to pass?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:06 amIF you want to talk about Goldman Sachs’ leadership, well, Corzine and Robert Rubin were both former chariman and became Democratic Politicians.
Comment by m12
Whats in a name?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:07 amhttp://abcnews.go.com/Business/MarketTalk/Story?id=3399837&page=3
July 30th, 2007 at 12:07 am“I hope Fred and Hillary use protection.”
Fred does it raw.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:08 amI hate to ask this again but,
Does anyone else here know if it’s more important to have accountability in our government, or to have a Congress with a high approval rating?
Comment by Egreggious — July 30, 2007 @ 12:04 am
July 30th, 2007 at 12:08 am“Bilbobaggins, it’s good to see that you’re sticking with us, at least temporarily. A couple of days ago you were ready to give up on TP:)
Comment by Jane E. Schneider”
I decided to stick around and see if I couldn’t challenge the idiot trolls and maybe get a real answer out of one of them. But, sadly, they are not able to answer clear questions with honest answers. First Frank J (now known as Francine) refused to answer my questions and then answered a question by throwing out a straw man and saying “Clinton did it”. After that, he kind of disappeared for a while. I was hoping that he was defeated, but unfortunately he has reared his ugly head again.
Then I tried to get mommy12 to answer a question. But, he just ignores the questions. I don’t believe his 12 year old brain is advanced enough to actually do some critical thinking and answer a question.
I have to admit that it is getting very frustrating posting here, though. Some days it feels like the trolls are winning. I am still anxiously awaiting TP’s promised registration system. I don’t know why it is taking so long, though. I could set up a system for them in a week. It’s not rocket science. Witness the fact that all other competing blogs have registration systems, and even the conservative blogs have them.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:09 amDoes anybody here know how many votes you have to have to get cloture in the Senate?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:09 amIs FAUX Comedy Channel’s GOP propogandist pushing agenda the result of polls taken of the workers , or Rupert Murdick’s semi-gay fascination with the GOP and the memory of Ronnie Retard ?
——–
Nice rebuttal there McStupid. Are you retarded?
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — July 30, 2007 @ 12:04 am
No , I’m not part of the GOP , Assmask ………
July 30th, 2007 at 12:09 amAddendum to #340.
I forgot. Mr. Pee answered a question with the enlightening answer of “I dunno”, so I can’t really say that none have answered my questions.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:11 amhttp://www.opensecrets.org/
July 30th, 2007 at 12:11 amhttp://www.opensecrets.org
July 30th, 2007 at 12:11 am“Does anybody here know how many votes you have to have to get cloture in the Senate?
omment by Egreggious”
The number is 60.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:12 amDoes anybody here know how many votes you have to have to get cloture in the Senate?
Comment by Egreggious — July 30, 2007 @ 12:09 am
60
July 30th, 2007 at 12:12 amhttp://abcnews.go.com/ Business/ MarketTalk/ Story?id=3399837&page=3
Comment by m12 — July 30, 2007 @ 12:07 am
And did you even bother to read it ?
“I think you still have people,” he said, “who are at the very top of the food chain who are still committed to the administration and the party.”
Christ , you Chimpy rim lickers are the most blindly loyal and ignorant twits ever hatched………..
July 30th, 2007 at 12:12 amI THINK its 60 Egg.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:13 am60
Comment by Administrator1 — July 30, 2007 @ 12:12 am
Thank you, Administrator1.
Does anyone know how many Democrats are in the Senate?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:13 amNo , I’m not part of the GOP , Assmask ………
Comment by MCMetal
You sound too stupid to vote, McStupid. You probably work at McDonolds.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:13 amThe trolls serve our purpose by demonstrating how entrenched the fantasies of the “Retarded Right” have become. Though it is regrettable they can’t provide more cogent arguments.
BTW, I actually got two direct answers the other day which, of course, were contradictory.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:14 amThank you for the confirmation, Cuckoo.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:14 amHow many of those companies decide direction based upon the employees and not their Board of Directors ?
IF you want to talk about Goldman Sachs’ leadership, well, Corzine and Robert Rubin were both former chariman and became Democratic Politicians.
Comment by m12 — July 30, 2007 @ 12:06 am
When ?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:15 amOut of the list of names I published were at Goldman Sachs , some were there up until what , last year ?
When were Corzine and Rubin there ?
5 years ago ?
Great analysis……..
“I think you still have people,†he said, “who are at the very top of the food chain who are still committed to the administration and the party.â€
Christ , you Chimpy rim lickers are the most blindly loyal and ignorant twits ever hatched………..
Comment by MCMetal — July 30, 2007 @ 12:12 am
Who are these people, exactly? Former CEO Governor John Corzine of New Jersey? He’s a democrat….
July 30th, 2007 at 12:15 amYou probably work at McDonolds.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS
There is no law preventing McDonalds employees from voting. =)
Get over your supposed intelligence, please.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:15 amDoes anyone know how many Democrats are in the Senate?
Comment by Egreggious
But Administrator1 said “Gonzo” was going to be impeached. How is this possible if the Dems don’t have enough votes?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:15 am49 Democrats in the Senate I believe
July 30th, 2007 at 12:15 amSo mommy12. I see you are still here. The question is #330. I’m waiting for your answer. And make it an honest answer. No strawmen or blaming Clinton allowed.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:16 amWho are these people, exactly? Former CEO Governor John Corzine of New Jersey? He’s a democrat….
Comment by m12
Bwahaha.
You are never going to learn.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:17 amNo , I’m not part of the GOP , Assmask ………
Comment by MCMetal
You sound too stupid to vote, McStupid. You probably work at McDonolds.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — July 30, 2007 @ 12:13 am
And you’re what ?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:17 amA proud , GOP page , Assmask ?
Taking Foley to ‘gay-rehab’ , are ya’ ?
BTW it’s spelled “McDonald’s”, you Kentucky Fried Retard……
But Administrator1 said “Gonzo†was going to be impeached. How is this possible if the Dems don’t have enough votes?
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — July 30, 2007 @ 12:15 am
*******
You really should educate yourself.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:17 am49 Democrats in the Senate I believe
Comment by Administrator1 — July 30, 2007 @ 12:15 am
Thank you, Administrator1.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:17 amGet over your supposed intelligence, please.
Comment by La Cuckoo Rot Ya
Welcome to our wonderful land!
July 30th, 2007 at 12:17 amIf you think that nothing illegal or bad happened when Pat Tillman was killed, why is Bush claiming Executive Privilege to keep from releasing documents on the investigation of his death?
Why? Because the Democrats are on a fishing expedition to try to bring down his Presidency!
July 30th, 2007 at 12:18 amThank you for the confirmation, Cuckoo.
Comment by Egreggious
I may be nuts but I’m not nucking futs! =)
July 30th, 2007 at 12:18 amAdministrator1, can you see into the future?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:18 amA proud , GOP page , Assmask ?
Taking Foley to ‘gay-rehab’ , are ya’ ?
————–
The former page who met with Foley was a grown man.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:18 amDoes anyone know what a fishing expedition is?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:19 amComment by La Cuckoo Rot Ya
Welcome to our wonderful land!
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS
Thanks michael. =)
July 30th, 2007 at 12:19 amDoes anyone here think Foley is an upright, moral man?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:19 amLieberman is an Independent (read Republican)
Bernie Sanders is an Independent (read Democrat)
One Democratic Senator is ill, but is expected to return after the recess.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:20 amDoes anyone know what a fishing expedition is?
Comment by Egreggious
Men with poles and no worms?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:20 amBut Administrator1 said “Gonzo†was going to be impeached. How is this possible if the Dems don’t have enough votes?
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — July 30, 2007 @ 12:15 am
*******
You really should educate yourself.
Comment by Administrator1
————–
You need 2/3rds in the Senate for removal. How is this possible? You said “Gonzo” would be convicted of impeachment.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:20 amAdministrator1, you seem very well informed.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:21 am“Why? Because the Democrats are on a fishing expedition to try to bring down his Presidency! Comment by m12 “
See, I knew you couldn’t honestly answer a question. How is it a fishing expedition when a doctors report says that Pat Tillman was shot three times in the head at a range of 10 yards. That grossly conflicts with what our government says happened. Also, why did they burn Pat Tillman’s uniform at the scene? Is that a fishing expedition. If Pat Tillman was your son, wouldn’t you want to know the truth about how he died.
Besides, what does Executive Privilege have to do with an investigation into a death in the military? Executive Privilege covers conversations between the President and his staff. What conversation did Bush have with his staff about Pat Tillman’s death that he doesn’t want us to know about?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:21 amDoes anyone here think Foley is an upright, moral man?
Comment by Egreggious — July 30, 2007 @ 12:19 am
*******
July 30th, 2007 at 12:21 amHe’s no doubt “upright” but hardly moral.
“I think you still have people,†he said, “who are at the very top of the food chain who are still committed to the administration and the party.â€
Christ , you Chimpy rim lickers are the most blindly loyal and ignorant twits ever hatched………..
Comment by MCMetal — July 30, 2007 @ 12:12 am
Who are these people, exactly? Former CEO Governor John Corzine of New Jersey? He’s a democrat….
Comment by m12 — July 30, 2007 @ 12:15 am
Like I posted ; you didn’t even bother reading everything on the page you put a link up to ……
So, why do some firms lean further toward one party or the other?
According to Nemazee, in some of the Republican-leaning firms, it might very well be that employees donate because that’s what their bosses encourage.
“I think you still have people,” he said, “who are at the very top of the food chain who are still committed to the administration and the party.”
Since when has anyone ever mentioned a Governor using the words “administration and the party” to define he/she/them ?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:21 amWhat is wrong with you ?
Thanks michael. =)
Comment by La Cuckoo Rot Ya
———–
I’m not michael.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:21 amDoes anyone here know how it is possible for 2/3 of the Senate to vote the same way?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:22 amDoes anyone know what a fishing expedition is?
Comment by Egreggious — July 30, 2007 @ 12:19 am
Yes, what Chimpy claims is the best part/most memorable moment of his presidency ; and seeing as how he is the worst president in US history , I’m sure most every American would agree ……….
July 30th, 2007 at 12:23 amComment by MCMetal — July 30, 2007 @ 12:23 am
Thank you, MCMetal.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:23 amYou need 2/3rds in the Senate for removal. How is this possible? You said “Gonzo†would be convicted of impeachment.
*******
July 30th, 2007 at 12:23 amBecause, hard as it may be to believe, many Republicans will vote for impeachment if the Attorney General is not fired or does not resign.
“You need 2/3rds in the Senate for removal. How is this possible? You said “Gonzo†would be convicted of impeachment.
Comment by Brassmask”
Brassass – you are assuming that all the Republicans are going to vote not to convict Gonzo. That’s not a good bet on your part. Twenty of the Republican Senators are up for re-election. They are already getting an earful from their constituents. I think they are smart enough to know that if they vote not to convict Gonzo they will be kissing their political careers goodby.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:23 am“Does anyone here think Foley is an upright, moral man?”
He’s gay. All of his rendevouis were with grown men.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:24 amLieberman is an Independent (read Republican)
Bernie Sanders is an Independent (read Democrat)
One Democratic Senator is ill, but is expected to return after the recess.
Comment by Administrator1
Feingold is not an Independent?
My bad.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:24 amDoes anyone know why Foley resigned?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:25 am“Brassass – you are assuming that all the Republicans are going to vote not to convict Gonzo.”
You won’t get one.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:25 amThe trolls serve our purpose by demonstrating how entrenched the fantasies of the “Retarded Right†have become.
i’m not convinced they actually believe it, pete… well, a few…
Though it is regrettable they can’t provide more cogent arguments.
because they don’t NEED anything cogent to disrupt and
sidetrack the thread…
BTW, I actually got two direct answers the other day which, of course, were contradictory.
Comment by pete — July 30, 2007 @ 12:14 am
imagine that…
July 30th, 2007 at 12:25 ami picture college repugs with several laptops and multiple personalities…
post-its with the name stuck on the screen…
a rung lower than telemarketers… and i’m sometimes kind and respectful to telemarketers… it’s a job…
but troolling is… well, it’s like a sin… it’s just being bad…
.
Thanks michael. =)
Comment by La Cuckoo Rot Ya
———–
I’m not michael.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — July 30, 2007 @ 12:21 am
You mean there’s more than 1 monumentally stupid Shrub nut hugger that posts here now ?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:26 amHow revolting ……….
Does anyone here have a crystal ball to see into the future?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:26 am“Does anyone know why Foley resigned?”
The same reason Bill Clinton should have.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:26 amI know you addressed that comment specifically to Brass. Is it OK if I read it too? ;)
Comment by Egreggious — July 29, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
Go ahead, but don’t tell Brass. He obviously hasn’t read it. :)
July 30th, 2007 at 12:26 amDoes anyone know why Foley resigned?
Comment by Egreggious — July 30, 2007 @ 12:25 am
Because Jeff Gannon turned him down for an “interview”………..
July 30th, 2007 at 12:26 amDoes anyone here know if Clinton was an upright, moral man?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:27 amDoes anyone know why Foley resigned?
Comment by Egreggious — July 30, 2007 @ 12:25 am
He felt terrible that he got caught.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:27 amYou mean there’s more than 1 monumentally stupid Shrub nut hugger that posts here now ?
How revolting ……….
Comment by MCMetal
There aren’t any stupid Shrub nut huggers here. There is, however, one liberal who keeps name changing.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:27 amComment by MCMetal — July 30, 2007 @ 12:26 am
Thank you, MCM.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:28 am“You won’t get one.
Comment by Brassmask”
Hey, I’d like some of what you are smoking. You are really out of touch with reality.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:28 am“Does anyone here know if Clinton was an upright, moral man?”
That’s not why he was impeached.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:28 amComment by Zooey — July 30, 2007 @ 12:27 am
Thank you, Z.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:28 amHe felt terrible that he got caught.
Comment by Zooey
Foley was a gay man. That’s all.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:29 amDoes anyone here have a crystal ball to see into the future?
Comment by Egreggious — July 30, 2007 @ 12:26 am
***********
July 30th, 2007 at 12:29 amThe Bush Administration uses one for foreign policy.
You mean there’s more than 1 monumentally stupid Shrub nut hugger that posts here now ?
How revolting ……….
Comment by MCMetal
There aren’t any stupid Shrub nut huggers here. There is, however, one liberal who keeps name changing.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — July 30, 2007 @ 12:27 am
If you back Shrub , and your dopey ass certainly does , you are beyond stupid ………….
July 30th, 2007 at 12:29 amThere aren’t any stupid Shrub nut huggers here. There is, however, one liberal who keeps name changing.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — July 30, 2007 @ 12:27 am
We liberals are a very free sort….
July 30th, 2007 at 12:29 amDoes anyone know what a Shrub nut hugger is?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:30 amHey, I’d like some of what you are smoking. You are really out of touch with reality.
Comment by bilbobaggins
Which Republican is going to vote for impeachment?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:30 amFoley was a gay man. That’s all.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — July 30, 2007 @ 12:29 am
Really? Imagine that….
And he really liked him some underage boys. Mmmmmmmmm…..
July 30th, 2007 at 12:30 amDoes anyone have some Tarot cards?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:31 amIf you back Shrub , and your dopey ass certainly does , you are beyond stupid ………….
Comment by MCMetal
The choice was Bush or Kerry.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:31 am“Foley was a gay man. That’s all.
Comment by Brassmask “
Foley was a gay man in the Republican party. Foley was in the closet and he preached to “family values” sermon for the Republicans. Foley embarrassed the Republicans to a point where they told him to resign.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:31 am“I think you still have people,†he said, “who are at the very top of the food chain who are still committed to the administration and the party.â€
Since when has anyone ever mentioned a Governor using the words “administration and the party†to define he/she/them ?
What is wrong with you ?
I think something flew right over your head. Corzine has plenty of his pals still at Goldman in high places. They send cash to Hillary’s campagin.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:31 amDoes anyone know what a Shrub nut hugger is?
Comment by Egreggious — July 30, 2007 @ 12:30 am
I’m pretty sure it’s that Brass dude.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:31 amAnd he really liked him some underage boys. Mmmmmmmmm…..
Comment by Zooey
The boy was 18.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:32 amDoes anyone know what a Shrub nut hugger is?
Comment by Egreggious — July 30, 2007 @ 12:30 am
Brassmask from 3DHS ?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:32 am“Which Republican is going to vote for impeachment?
comment by Brassmask from 3DHS “
Any Republican Senator up for re-election in 2008 if they think they have a prayer of being re-elected.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:32 amComment by Administrator1 — July 30, 2007 @ 12:32 am
Ad, you answered a question with a question. One demerit point.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:33 amFoley was a gay man in the Republican party. Foley was in the closet and he preached to “family values†sermon for the Republicans. Foley embarrassed the Republicans to a point where they told him to resign.
Comment by bilbobaggins
The Democrats also used that he was gay against him.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:33 am“Does anyone here know if Clinton was an upright, moral man?â€
That’s not why he was impeached.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — July 30, 2007 @ 12:28 am
Yeah , it was a 6 YEAR FISHING EXPEDITION that pissed away $70 million tax-payer dollars ; and the current horseshit GOP and this godawful administration (as well as their imbecilic backers like you , Assmask) , are balling and wailing like retarded banshees at the Dems’ “over-reaching” and “time wasting” into investigating the criminal activity of Chimpy and Co………
July 30th, 2007 at 12:33 amAny Republican Senator up for re-election in 2008 if they think they have a prayer of being re-elected.
Comment by bilbobaggins
The voters are clamoring for impeachment, are they?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:33 amI’m still not clear on this.
does anyone here think Foley was a moral, upright man?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:34 am“Yeah , it was a 6 YEAR FISHING EXPEDITION that pissed away $70 million tax-payer dollars”
14 felony convictions.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:34 amComment by Administrator1 — July 30, 2007 @ 12:32 am
Ad, you answered a question with a question. One demerit point.
Comment by Egreggious — July 30, 2007 @ 12:33 am
*****
July 30th, 2007 at 12:34 amDamn? I mean DAMN!
The boy was 18.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — July 30, 2007 @ 12:32 am
The one you know about….
Why are you defending that hypocrite?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:35 amIf you back Shrub , and your dopey ass certainly does , you are beyond stupid ………….
Comment by MCMetal
The choice was Bush or Kerry.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — July 30, 2007 @ 12:31 am
And how’s that working out ?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:35 amNothing like trying to claim a military deserter is capable of “protecting America and all Americans” ………..
Foley was a gay man. That’s all.
Sorry, a guy that goes after boys (underage) is a sex predator. There IS a difference.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:35 amComment by Zooey — July 30, 2007 @ 12:31 am
Thank you, Z. Sorry, having a little trouble keeping up here.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:35 amdoes anyone here think Foley was a moral, upright man?
Comment by Egreggious
Depends if you think being gay is moral and upright. I could really care less.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:36 am“The boy was 18.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS “
There were more than one allegations and many of the others were NOT 18.
Here’s why Foley quit:
Once the scandal broke in full, Foley had virtually no chance of staying in Congress. Hastert said in an October 2 press conference that he would have demanded Foley’s expulsion from the House had he tried to stay in office.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:36 amSorry, a guy that goes after boys (underage) is a sex predator. There IS a difference.
Comment by JG
The “boy” he went after was 18.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:37 am“I think you still have people,†he said, “who are at the very top of the food chain who are still committed to the administration and the party.â€
Since when has anyone ever mentioned a Governor using the words “administration and the party†to define he/she/them ?
What is wrong with you ?
I think something flew right over your head. Corzine has plenty of his pals still at Goldman in high places. They send cash to Hillary’s campagin.
Comment by m12 — July 30, 2007 @ 12:31 am
What the hell does that quote , which came from the link that you provided , have anything to do with Corzine , Hillary , or anything other than Chimpy and Co and the horseshit GOP ?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:37 amAre you reading impaired ?
3 words : Hooked On Phonics…………
The page may have been 18 when the story broke, but he was 17 when Foley approached him for sex. He wasn’t the only underage page who was approached.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:38 amDoes anyone here bring up topics they could care less about?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:38 am“There were more than one allegations and many of the others were NOT 18.”
That’s a false statement.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:38 am“The page may have been 18 when the story broke, but he was 17 when Foley approached him for sex.”
Actually he was 18.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:39 am“Yeah , it was a 6 YEAR FISHING EXPEDITION that pissed away $70 million tax-payer dollarsâ€
14 felony convictions.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — July 30, 2007 @ 12:34 am
And how many convictions would be this garbage administration have against it if the do-nothing 109th Congress wasn’t a rubber-stamping , GOP led pile of fecal matter ?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:39 am1400 ?
The boy was 18.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS
You are a liar. He was 16 at the time of Foley’s emails.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:40 amThank you, Z. Sorry, having a little trouble keeping up here.
Comment by Egreggious — July 30, 2007 @ 12:35 am
Me, too. :)
One phone call, and BLAM!! 60 comments are up.
This Brass a quite promiscuous in his posting.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:40 amI will assume from the silence that no one hear believes Foley is an upright, moral man.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:40 amSorry Egreggious. Shouldn’t have gooten sidetracked. Think this is my cue to go to bed.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:40 am“That’s a false statement.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS”
Why, because you say so. God, you are about the dumbest troll that has ever thrown their feces around on this site. What is your IQ? I’d guess at maybe 70.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:40 am“And how many convictions would be this garbage administration have against it if the do-nothing 109th Congress wasn’t a rubber-stamping , GOP led pile of fecal matter ?
1400 ?”
You got one, under very questionable circumstances.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:40 amYou are a liar. He was 16 at the time of Foley’s emails.
Comment by gummitch — July 30, 2007 @ 12:40 am
Whoa, gummitch! Are you sure he’s not misleading? :D
July 30th, 2007 at 12:41 amActually he was 18.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS
Lies. He was 16.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:41 amGoodnight, JG!!
July 30th, 2007 at 12:41 amWhoa, gummitch! Are you sure he’s not misleading? :D
Comment by Zooey — July 30, 2007 @ 12:41 am
Teehee.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:41 amYou are a liar. He was 16 at the time of Foley’s emails.
Comment by gummitch
You are confusing Foley’s emails with his im’s. But I won’t call you a liar.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:41 amThat’s it. I’m going to bed too. It’s too exhausting trying to talk to someone as dumb as Brassass.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:42 amGoodnight, JG.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:42 amYou are confusing Foley’s emails with his im’s. But I won’t call you a liar.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS
So sorry.
Foley’s IM messages to the 16 year old child.
You, on the other hand, are a liar.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:43 amYou are confusing Foley’s emails with his im’s. But I won’t call you a liar.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — July 30, 2007 @ 12:41 am
Hey Brass, I’m gonna need to see a link from a neutral source that states what age the boy in questions was at the time the IMs started.
Thanks.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:43 amI will assume from the silence that no one hear believes Foley is an upright, moral man.
Comment by Egreggious
Dead silence with the same question about Clinton.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:44 am“And how many convictions would be this garbage administration have against it if the do-nothing 109th Congress wasn’t a rubber-stamping , GOP led pile of fecal matter ?
1400 ?â€
You got one, under very questionable circumstances.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — July 30, 2007 @ 12:40 am
Yeah , we definitely need to question an administration that encourages and constantly tries to lie and obstruct justice on a habitual and constant basis………
July 30th, 2007 at 12:44 amGoodnight, bilbobaggins!
July 30th, 2007 at 12:44 amDoes anyone here think Foley is a hypocrite?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:44 amSo sorry.
Foley’s IM messages to the 16 year old child.
———-
The IM’s were to the 18 year old. If you continue, I will be forced to call you a liar.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:45 amGoodnight, bilbo.
I really can’t keep up.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:45 amDoes anyone here think Foley is a hypocrite?
Comment by Egreggious — July 30, 2007 @ 12:44 am
I do!
July 30th, 2007 at 12:45 amYeah , we definitely need to question an administration that encourages and constantly tries to lie and obstruct justice on a habitual and constant basis………
———
Fine but the do nothing hearings are dragging down their approval rating.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:46 amI do!
Comment by Zooey — July 30, 2007 @ 12:45 am
Thank you, Z.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:46 amThe IM’s were to the 18 year old. If you continue, I will be forced to call you a liar.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — July 30, 2007 @ 12:45 am
I requested a link. That would solve the argument, wouldn’t it?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:46 amDoes anyone here think Clinton is a hypocrite?
Comment by Egreggious
I do!!!!
July 30th, 2007 at 12:46 amSorry, I need to ask this one again:
Does anyone else here know if it’s more important to have accountability in our government, or to have a Congress with a high approval rating?
Comment by Egreggious — July 30, 2007 @ 12:04 am
July 30th, 2007 at 12:47 amFine but the do nothing hearings are dragging down their approval rating.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — July 30, 2007 @ 12:46 am
Do you only do things that will get you a good approval rating? Your kids must be rotten little shits.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:47 amThe IM’s were to the 18 year old. If you continue, I will be forced to call you a liar.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS
http://tinyurl.com/yj3czb
“underage”
http://tinyurl.com/j6r8j
“under the age of 18″
Take your ridiculous bullsh!t somewhere where the braindead will believe you.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:49 amDoes anyone know if there is some form of torture that will force you to call someone a liar?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:49 amSorry, I need to ask this one again:
Does anyone else here know if it’s more important to have accountability in our government, or to have a Congress with a high approval rating?
Comment by Egreggious — July 30, 2007 @ 12:04 am
Comment by Egreggious — July 30, 2007 @ 12:47 am
Can’t there be both ?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:50 amIsn’t performance and recognition of it something to aspire to ?
Does anyone else here know if it’s more important to have accountability in our government, or to have a Congress with a high approval rating?
Comment by Egreggious
Absolutely. Well spoken
July 30th, 2007 at 12:51 amCan’t there be both ?
Isn’t performance and recognition of it something to aspire to ?
Comment by MCMetal — July 30, 2007 @ 12:50 am
Two demerit points, MCM.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:51 amBut blogger William Kerr of Passionate America says that he has identified the former page, that he is 21 now, and that he was 18 at the time the instant messages were exchanged.
Kerr says that he discovered a copy of the instant messages on ABC’s website that did not have the former page’s screen name redacted. Using the screen name, Kerr and fellow blogger Ms. Underestimated say they were able to identify Foley’s correspondent as a 21 year old former page, who was apparently 18 at the time of the instant messages with Foley.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:51 amTake your ridiculous bullsh!t somewhere where the braindead will believe you.
Comment by gummitch — July 30, 2007 @ 12:49 am
Oh my, it’s not looking good for Brass.
Brass? Are you sure that boy you’re seeing is 18?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:51 amAbsolutely. Well spoken
Comment by gummitch — July 30, 2007 @ 12:51 am
Thank you, gummitch.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:51 amDoes anyone here think Clinton is a hypocrite?
Comment by Egreggious
I do!!!!
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — July 30, 2007 @ 12:46 am
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
July 30th, 2007 at 12:52 amYou have the ability to think as well as Chimpy has an inherent ability to speak well in public , you brainless clod…….
Wow, I leave the room for a second and there are 40 more comments! (probably exagerating..)
Night y’all!
July 30th, 2007 at 12:53 amDo you only do things that will get you a good approval rating? Your kids must be rotten little shits.
Comment by Zooey
If the Dems want to keep their majority.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:53 amThe consensus seems to be that Foley is not a moral, upright man.
Anyone changed their mind?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:53 amCan’t there be both ?
Isn’t performance and recognition of it something to aspire to ?
Comment by MCMetal — July 30, 2007 @ 12:50 am
Two demerit points, MCM.
Comment by Egreggious — July 30, 2007 @ 12:51 am
Wow,tough crowd ………
July 30th, 2007 at 12:53 amMirror into the future anyone?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:54 amGoodnight again, JG.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:54 amComment by Brassmask from 3DHS — July 30, 2007 @ 12:51 am
That is not proof.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:55 amBut blogger William Kerr of Passionate America says that he has identified the former page, that he is 21 now, and that he was 18 at the time the instant messages were exchanged.
Kerr says that he discovered a copy of the instant messages on ABC’s website that did not have the former page’s screen name redacted. Using the screen name, Kerr and fellow blogger Ms. Underestimated say they were able to identify Foley’s correspondent as a 21 year old former page, who was apparently 18 at the time of the instant messages with Foley.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS
Oh, well, that’s different.
An anonymous blogger claims he’s proven that Foley wasn’t into young boys. That must be true.
Who cleans your cage for you in the morning? And does it matter which newspaper they use?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:55 am“An anonymous blogger claims he’s proven that Foley wasn’t into young boys. That must be true.”
The man on the other end of the IM was 18.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:56 amIf the Dems want to keep their majority.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — July 30, 2007 @ 12:53 am
Wow. No moral compass, huh?
What about your kids? Rotten shits, right?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:56 amMirror into the future anyone?
Comment by Egreggious — July 30, 2007 @ 12:54 am
Light…..at the end of a very long tunnel….
July 30th, 2007 at 12:57 amBut blogger William Kerr of Passionate America says that he has identified the former page, that he is 21 now, and that he was 18 at the time the instant messages were exchanged.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — July 30, 2007 @ 12:51 am
Wow !!!!!!!!!!!
“The” Wiiliam Kerr of “Passionate America” ?
Who in the hell is William Kerr , and what kind of amateur dump is this “Passionate America” ?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:58 amSome Cancervative moron , whose site makes The Weakly Substandard seem almost centrist , probably………
Wow. No moral compass, huh?
What about your kids? Rotten shits, right?
Comment by Zooey
If the Dems want to keep their majority they have to have a higher confidence level than 14%.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:58 amI hope this is over. I’m starting to run out of questions.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:58 amHas anyone seen any polls on which parties people are planning to vote for in the 2008 elections?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:59 amAll you have to do is ask me to leave.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:59 amThe man on the other end of the IM was 18.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — July 30, 2007 @ 12:56 am
Liar.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:59 amHas anyone seen any polls on which parties people are planning to vote for in the 2008 elections?
Comment by Egreggious
When you put in names into those polls, the GOP wins.
July 30th, 2007 at 1:00 amDoes anyone here think it is improper to call someone a “liar”?
Sorry, ridiculous question.
July 30th, 2007 at 1:00 am“An anonymous blogger claims he’s proven that Foley wasn’t into young boys. That must be true.â€
The man on the other end of the IM was 18.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — July 30, 2007 @ 12:56 am
According to whom ?
Some Cancervative , Chimpy rim licking stooge like yourself ?
Yeah , because you chumps don’t parrot outright lies spread by wrong wingnut radio/TV hosts and GOP headquarters , right genius ?