NationStates Jolt Archive

A poll says 45% of Americans want the President impeached. 54% want Cheney impeached. Why aren't the Democrats listening to their constituents like they promised? Not that I expect any better from people who are guaranteed a seat for as long as they wish. Also, I think these numbers are actually a bit higher.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070706/pl_afp/uspoliticsbush)

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Nearly half of the US public wants President George W. Bush to face impeachment, and even more favor that fate for Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a poll out Friday.

The survey by the American Research Group found that 45 percent support the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Bush, with 46 percent opposed, and a 54-40 split in favor when it comes to Cheney.

The study by the private New Hampshire-based ARG canvassed 1,100 Americans by telephone July 3-5 and had an error margin of plus or minus three percentage points. The findings are available on ARG's Internet site.

The White House declined to comment on the poll, the latest bad news for a president who has seen his public opinion standings dragged to record lows by the unpopular war in Iraq.

The US Constitution says presidents and vice presidents can be impeached -- that is, formally charged by the House -- for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" by a simple majority vote.

Conviction by the Senate, which requires a two-thirds majority, means removal from office.

Just two US presidents have been impeached: Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998 and acquitted in 1999; Andrew Johnson was impeached and acquitted in 1868. Disgraced president Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 when a House impeachment vote appeared likely.

In late April, left-wing Representative Dennis Kucinich, a long-shot Democratic presidential hopeful, introduced a resolution calling for Cheney's impeachment. To date, the measure has nine listed co-sponsors and a 10th set to sign on when the House returns to work next week.

But Democratic leaders appear unlikely to pursue such a course.

For the record, I voted for option #4.

Considering that the people most likely to answer polls are old retired people (Which are mostly conservatives) then it's really bad.

I say impeach them all, then for serving Big Money *Cough* Halliburtan *cough* instead of the country...

They should then all be charged with High Treason.

Shame you don't live in a democracy where politicians actually have to listen to the People.

As to why the Dems aren't doing anything - maybe they worried that an impeachment could backfire on them, and lose them all those centrist and right-of-centre voters. Much the way GOP's obsession with going after Clinton backfired and lost them a lot of support.
Maybe the Dems are too caught up trying to fix all the problems GWB has made to worry themselves about impeaching.
That's a couple of possible reasons. I'm sure there's others.

Shame you don't live in a democracy where politicians actually have to listen to the People.

Since when have politicians cared what people think? :confused:

Since when have politicians cared what people think? :confused:
When it's close to election time but not after.

When it's close to election time but not after.

lol, true enough. :p

As to why the Dems aren't doing anything - maybe they worried that an impeachment could backfire on them, and lose them all those centrist and right-of-centre voters.

I think that's exactly why they're not doing it. Right now the Republicans are divided and unsure. The last thing the Democrats want to do before 2008 is make the Republicans think they're being "attacked" and get them to rally 'round the flag.

As to why the Dems aren't doing anything - maybe they worried that an impeachment could backfire on them, and lose them all those centrist and right-of-centre voters. Much the way GOP's obsession with going after Clinton backfired and lost them a lot of support.

of course, clinton was a popular president, the impeachment was ridiculously unpopular, and the republicans retained control of the house and still had a slight edge in the senate (because of cheney) in the next election.

He has a year and a half left people, I mean comon. The time to be doing this was back in 2004-2005, not now.

So glad I am not American.

He has a year and a half left people

i want to be able to use this as an excuse next time i admit on national teevee to committing hundreds or thousands of felonies, each one of which is punishable by up to 5 years in the slammer.

i want to be able to use this as an excuse next time i admit on national teevee to committing hundreds or thousands of felonies, each one of which is punishable by up to 5 years in the slammer.

Ok, first off, it's TV, not teevee. Second of all, what hundreds of thousands of felonies?

Ok, first off, it's TV, not teevee. Second of all, what hundreds of thousands of felonies?

you're lucky i didn't add two or three more extra e's for emphasis.

and the openly acknowledged fisa violations

He has a year and a half left people, I mean comon. The time to be doing this was back in 2004-2005, not now.

You come on. Who had the power of the congressional subpoena in 2004-5? Who had the ability to investigate wrongdoing then? It certainly wasn't Minority Leaders Pelosi and Reid. When investigations are done by committee, then the majority means everything, especially when you had a Congress willing to rubber stamp everything Bush wanted and then some. The time is now because now is the time it can be brought forward for a vote.

you're lucky i didn't add two or three more extra e's for emphasis.

and the openly acknowledged fisa violations

And if you tack on a charge for every document Cheney's office didn't archive in direct violation of Bush's own executive order, well, you might hit seven figures.

And if you tack on a charge for every document Cheney's office didn't archive in direct violation of Bush's own executive order, well, you might hit seven figures.

but we can be lenient. they can serve half of their sentences concurrently with the others

For there to be an impeachment you not only have to come up with a charge, you have to prove it too. Those charges must be a legal violation. And then thye have to be proved.

Name a violation of the law and then prove it and there can be an impeachment.

For there to be an impeachment you not only have to come up with a charge, you have to prove it too. Those charges must be a legal violation. And then thye have to be proved.

Name a violation of the law and then prove it and there can be an impeachment.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001809----000-.html

He has a year and a half left people, I mean comon. The time to be doing this was back in 2004-2005, not now.
I'll respond to what I said to someone else who used the same argument.


A year is enough time to find a way to try and start another war *Cough*Iran*Cough*, give a couple 100 Billion extra to his corporate cronies, and to further destroy the middle class.

Look, I'm not saying I approve of everything he's done. I'm just saying that if he's really as much of a felon as you say he is then why hasn't he been impeached? There is no grand conspiracy here keeping him out of prison, so don't even suggest it. If you really think that he's guilty of that then write to your congressman and include that link in the letter. If it would hold up in court then it would go to court. If not then it won't.

Let it be thus.

Look, I'm not saying I approve of everything he's done. I'm just saying that if he's really as much of a felon as you say he is then why hasn't he been impeached? There is no grand conspiracy here keeping him out of prison, so don't even suggest it. If you really think that he's guilty of that then write to your congressman and include that link in the letter. If it would hold up in court then it would go to court. If not then it won't.

it went to court. the lower court said it was clearly a violation of the law. the higher court said the plaintiffs didn't have standing, as they couldn't show that they personally had been harmed by the clearly and obviously illegal actions of the president.

(as a side note, this is something of a standard move conservatives in the courts make when they are faced with unavoidable legal conclusions that run directly counter to the nonsense bullshit they believe. as a resolution to cognitive dissonance, it's actually pretty good, since legally it works and they can delay actually dealing with the problem for years, if not indefinitely)

as for why he hasn't been impeached yet, its because democrats fucking suck. and republicans suck worse.

And commies suck the most.

And commies suck the most.

indeed - now back to the topic at hand...

Considering that the people most likely to answer polls are old retired people (Which are mostly conservatives) then it's really bad.

See, I didn't have this experience when working for a research company. But we didn't do politics or public opinion, so that may have something to do with it.

As to why the Dems aren't doing anything - maybe they worried that an impeachment could backfire on them, and lose them all those centrist and right-of-centre voters. Much the way GOP's obsession with going after Clinton backfired and lost them a lot of support.

This is part of it. It also is because the Dems have a game plan that, if they play properly, will be a huge boon for them in 2008. Right now, they're putting through a lot of really good, really common sense legislation that is very popular with Americans, and specifically trying to do things which the GOP will try to fight. This is making the GOP look out of touch, and showing that the Dems know how to govern from the center. An impeachment would force that program to a close, because it would eat up all the time remaining on the clock.

However, I beleive that the President needs to be impeached for Obstruction of Justice and Contempt of Congress.

Impeachment would have to be for a single well-defined reason.
"Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" makes it pretty clear I think. Nixon was impeachable in that sense.
Can't impeach either Bush or Cheney for being generally crap. Unfortunately.

Impeachment would have to be for a single well-defined reason.
"Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" makes it pretty clear I think. Nixon was impeachable in that sense.
Can't impeach either Bush or Cheney for being generally crap. Unfortunately.

So Obstruction of Justice and Contempt of Congress (which are both Felonies) should do the trick, then.

This is part of it. It also is because the Dems have a game plan that, if they play properly, will be a huge boon for them in 2008. Right now, they're putting through a lot of really good, really common sense legislation that is very popular with Americans, and specifically trying to do things which the GOP will try to fight. This is making the GOP look out of touch, and showing that the Dems know how to govern from the center. An impeachment would force that program to a close, because it would eat up all the time remaining on the clock.

However, I beleive that the President needs to be impeached for Obstruction of Justice and Contempt of Congress.

assuming the dems played it right (hah!), an impeachment would also tie the republican party as a whole directly and inextricably to the ever popular and eventually fondly remembered cheney admin. i think, in addition to being absolutely morally required, it is also politically expedient to impeach. even if they don't have the votes to convict. perhaps especially if they don't.

For there to be an impeachment you not only have to come up with a charge, you have to prove it too. Those charges must be a legal violation. And then thye have to be proved.

Name a violation of the law and then prove it and there can be an impeachment.

Look, I'm not saying I approve of everything he's done. I'm just saying that if he's really as much of a felon as you say he is then why hasn't he been impeached? There is no grand conspiracy here keeping him out of prison, so don't even suggest it. If you really think that he's guilty of that then write to your congressman and include that link in the letter. If it would hold up in court then it would go to court. If not then it won't.
I've said it before, but it bears repeating.

Impeachment is almost never about guilt or innocence. It is an exercise in political power.

The Republicans, when they went after Clinton, did so after being in charge of the House for 4 years, and in the end, still had nothing, not even enough to get a simple conviction in the Senate, much less removal.

I can sit here and quote chapter and verse on why Bush, and especially Cheney, are worthy of impeachment. Cheney, as I mentioned above, openly admitted to being in violation of an Executive Order which required his office to maintain records of all communication. That's a violation of federal law and could easily be considered obstruction of justice, since those documents were requested as part of a Congressional investigation. That certainly falls under high crimes and misdemeanors, considering that Clinton was charged with that for far less of an offense.

But that doesn't mean impeachment will happen, because for removal to take place, there either have to be enough Democrats (in this case) to make it happen or enough Republicans who feel sufficiently threatened by the scandal (a la Nixon in 1975) to make them cross the aisle. Guilt is a secondary consideration.

He has a year and a half left people, I mean comon. The time to be doing this was back in 2004-2005, not now.

"Better late than never."

I don't support the president but i'm not childish enough to want impeachment.

My personal feelings aside impeachment is impossible for many reasons. I guarantee you any and every presidential candidate that voted for impeachment would automaticlly kiss there presidential chances goodbye. The democrats would get slaughtered in '08.

The republicans are a disorganized mess right now, any call for impeachment would do nothing but strengthen them with a united purpose.

Pelosi has said impeachment is off the table.

Even if she started impeachment proceedings he would be impeached, but like Clinton, he would not be removed from office because the democrats don't have the numbers, and certainly won't convince 15 republican senators to vote with them.

Impeachment proceedings take time, it most likely wouldn't finish before the end of the President's term.

Shame you don't live in a democracy where politicians actually have to listen to the People.

As to why the Dems aren't doing anything - maybe they worried that an impeachment could backfire on them, and lose them all those centrist and right-of-centre voters. Much the way GOP's obsession with going after Clinton backfired and lost them a lot of support.
Maybe the Dems are too caught up trying to fix all the problems GWB has made to worry themselves about impeaching.
That's a couple of possible reasons. I'm sure there's others.

Man, those people are the ones that WANT him impeached.

For there to be an impeachment you not only have to come up with a charge, you have to prove it too. Those charges must be a legal violation. And then thye have to be proved.

Name a violation of the law and then prove it and there can be an impeachment.

Congress can name anything.
"High" in the legal parlance of the 18th century means "against the State". A high crime is one which seeks the overthrow of the country, which gives aid or comfort to its enemies, or which injures the country to the profit of an individual or group. In democracies and similar societies it also includes crimes which attempt to alter the outcome of elections.
He gave indirect aid an comfort to terrorists by invading Iraq.

And commies suck the most.

I take offense.


Dosuun also said something I accidentally closed about why hasn't it gotten to court. It hasn't gotten to court because he's too powerful and impeaching the President is a big deal.

assuming the dems played it right (hah!), an impeachment would also tie the republican party as a whole directly and inextricably to the ever popular and eventually fondly remembered cheney admin. i think, in addition to being absolutely morally required, it is also politically expedient to impeach. even if they don't have the votes to convict. perhaps especially if they don't.

The GOP will have the strength of desperation if the Dems try an impeachment. They'll rally around Bush, and they'll be stronger.

A poll says 45% of Americans want the President impeached. 54% want Cheney impeached. Why aren't the Democrats listening to their constituents like they promised? Not that I expect any better from people who are guaranteed a seat for as long as they wish. Also, I think these numbers are actually a bit higher.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070706/pl_afp/uspoliticsbush)

Political and Constitutional prudence.

They realized that when the Republicans nearly impeached Clinton in the nineties how dangerous it would be to let the impeachment cat out of the bag. I think they realize that this opinion is little more than the passion of a dissatisfied populace, and, interestingly enough, they're listening to Burke on how to respond to such a situation. They know that impeaching Bush or Cheney is dangerous, and would far prefer to tread the middle ground.

Just simply on principle, I oppose impeachment for the exact same reason that I opposed Frist's threat to use the "nuclear option" regarding the judicial nominations: It runs counter to precedent, and if nothing else, it's dangerous.

He gave indirect aid an comfort to terrorists by invading Iraq.

By that logic, though, pretty much any president that has ever fought a war could be impeached.

Here’s a thought. If you don’t like the government or the people in it, and you think the rest of the government isn’t doing anything about it (which by the way is set up on a system of checks and balances, so the chances of that are slim to none), then you can fall back on John Locke’s principles (which this country was founded upon), and start a revolution.

Or you shut your whining mouths and contact you state representatives, maybe asking them why Bush hasn’t been impeached (if you think that is the best course of action) or trying to urge them forward. You’d be surprised what lots of letters to Congress can do to their composure.

Oh, and I'm for not impeaching anybody at the moment.;)

Here’s a thought. If you don’t like the government or the people in it, and you think the rest of the government isn’t doing anything about it (which by the way is set up on a system of checks and balances, so the chances of that are slim to none), then you can fall back on John Locke’s principles (which this country was founded upon), and start a revolution.

Or you shut your whining mouths and contact you state representatives, maybe asking them why Bush hasn’t been impeached (if you think that is the best course of action) or trying to urge them forward. You’d be surprised what lots of letters to Congress can do to their composure.

Oh, and I'm for not impeaching anybody at the moment.;)

They couldn't care less. Also, the US is virtually revolution-proof.

How about we not impeach anyone, and instead focus on electing a president that everyone likes and does not want to impeach. That would be better in the long run if we did that

thats all :gundge:

The GOP will have the strength of desperation if the Dems try an impeachment. They'll rally around Bush, and they'll be stronger.

explain how one becomes stronger by linking oneself entirely to someone politically radioactive?

Political and Constitutional prudence.

They realized that when the Republicans nearly impeached Clinton in the nineties how dangerous it would be to let the impeachment cat out of the bag. I think they realize that this opinion is little more than the passion of a dissatisfied populace, and, interestingly enough, they're listening to Burke on how to respond to such a situation. They know that impeaching Bush or Cheney is dangerous, and would far prefer to tread the middle ground.

since when did it become prudent to allow reckless dicatorial lawlessness run rampant and unpunished among a supposedly coequal branch of government? what fucked up middle path do you see here?

explain how one becomes stronger by linking oneself entirely to someone politically radioactive?

Last acts of desperate men. (Or maybe the first act of Henry VIII)

The thing that I find that is truly amazing is that there is 100,000s if not millions of people who want to kill Americans, Jews and anyone who helps them. And the issue that alot of dems focus on is trying to impeach Bush(which will never happen). I can't believe it. Last time I checked crazy Muslims wanted to kill Americans far before we invaded Iraq. Right now there are thousands of people who want to kill Americans in Iraq. Why the hell would we leave? Our military is there doing a good job killing them as they find them. Thats why were still in Iraq, there are well trained, experienced people who want to kill us there. It makes sense. What do you people think will happen when we leave? Do you think these people are going to go back to Europe and live quite lives. Hell no, their war is far from over and the sooner we leave Iraq the sooner the war will reach Europe. When there is "Iraq-style" car bombing and IEDs around the cities of Europe, remember what I said. Europeans also don't have much of a will to fight for anything any more; on the other hand these Muslims are highly motovated, things aren't looking too bright for Europe.

The thing that I find that is truly amazing is that there is 100,000s if not millions of people who want to kill Americans, Jews and anyone who helps them. And the issue that alot of dems focus on is trying to impeach Bush(which will never happen). I can't believe it. Last time I checked crazy Muslims wanted to kill Americans far before we invaded Iraq. Right now there are thousands of people who want to kill Americans in Iraq. Why the hell would we leave? Our military is there doing a good job killing them as they find them. Thats why were still in Iraq, there are well trained, experienced people who want to kill us there. It makes sense. What do you people think will happen when we leave? Do you think these people are going to go back to Europe and live quite lives. Hell no, their war is far from over and the sooner we leave Iraq the sooner the war will reach Europe. When there is "Iraq-style" car bombing and IEDs around the cities of Europe, remember what I said. Europeans also don't have much of a will to fight for anything any more; on the other hand these Muslims are highly motovated, things aren't looking too bright for Europe.

Wow what a deep insightful post you've made don't worry it's just sarcasm

Last acts of desperate men. (Or maybe the first act of Henry VIII)

but would they do it for Randolph Scott?

but would they do it for Randolph Scott?

*Whips off hat and listens to 'Randolph Scott' being sung* They would for Randolph Scott.

The thing that I find that is truly amazing is that there is 100,000s if not millions of people who want to kill Americans, Jews and anyone who helps them. And the issue that alot of dems focus on is trying to impeach Bush(which will never happen). I can't believe it. Last time I checked crazy Muslims wanted to kill Americans far before we invaded Iraq. Right now there are thousands of people who want to kill Americans in Iraq. Why the hell would we leave? Our military is there doing a good job killing them as they find them. Thats why were still in Iraq, there are well trained, experienced people who want to kill us there. It makes sense. What do you people think will happen when we leave? Do you think these people are going to go back to Europe and live quite lives. Hell no, their war is far from over and the sooner we leave Iraq the sooner the war will reach Europe. When there is "Iraq-style" car bombing and IEDs around the cities of Europe, remember what I said. Europeans also don't have much of a will to fight for anything any more; on the other hand these Muslims are highly motovated, things aren't looking too bright for Europe.

Things aren't looking too bright for Europe?

When was the last time we had a terrorist attack that killed 3000 people in one go?

since when did it become prudent to allow reckless dicatorial lawlessness run rampant and unpunished among a supposedly coequal branch of government? what fucked up middle path do you see here?

Because the amount of damage that they have done is limited in scope, and henceforth the scope of it cannot expand any further. The damage that impeachment proceedings would put the country through, on the other hand, would go beyond merely allowing this festering wound to last for another year and a half when this administration, with all its failings is gone, and this national impasse will be over for good. Bush will go down in history as the signal failure Presidency and we'll be over it.

Impeachment would rip open every national political wound dating back to the Great Society. The positive direction our economy has quietly taken for the past year or so will collapse and spiral into depression in the resultant political uncertainty. The national trauma would outlast the decade, and no one would be able to definitively say "Our long national nightmare is over" this time. It would last for a long time, with years of finger pointing, bickering and court cases.

I don't want a national nightmare, I just want this Presidency wrapped up, and a new guy in the White House in 2009.

Considering that the people most likely to answer polls are old retired people (Which are mostly conservatives) then it's really bad.

I say impeach them all, then for serving Big Money *Cough* Halliburtan *cough* instead of the country...

They should then all be charged with High Treason.

How do you figure? Phone sampling bias is not all that great to start with and even at its worse usually held to 2.5 percent or less by sample size

I agree with the rest of your post but I dont see the sampling bias as having a major effect on this

Get all of those suckers out of there. Impeach the whole lot.

This would be good news in any other country in the world, but it isn't in any other country, it's in the US.

The average American doesn't give a shit about dead Iraqis, being fooled into war (honestly, the didn't need to be fooled) the rights of the accused, congressional oversight or Gitmo.

They just think Bush is a looser because we're loosing in Iraq. Americans hate loosers.

This would be good news in any other country in the world, but it isn't in any other country, it's in the US.

The average American doesn't give a shit about dead Iraqis, being fooled into war (honestly, the didn't need to be fooled) the rights of the accused, congressional oversight or Gitmo.

They just think Bush is a looser because we're loosing in Iraq. Americans hate loosers.

Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is still better then doing the wrong thing

Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is still better then doing the wrong thing

Maybe.

Anyway, it doesn't matter if they impeach Bush, because about a year and a half we'll get president Romney.

Because the amount of damage that they have done is limited in scope, and henceforth the scope of it cannot expand any further.

explain how

The damage that impeachment proceedings would put the country through, on the other hand, would go beyond merely allowing this festering wound to last for another year and a half when this administration, with all its failings is gone, and this national impasse will be over for good. Bush will go down in history as the signal failure Presidency and we'll be over it.

Impeachment would rip open every national political wound dating back to the Great Society. The positive direction our economy has quietly taken for the past year or so will collapse and spiral into depression in the resultant political uncertainty. The national trauma would outlast the decade, and no one would be able to definitively say "Our long national nightmare is over" this time. It would last for a long time, with years of finger pointing, bickering and court cases.

I don't want a national nightmare, I just want this Presidency wrapped up, and a new guy in the White House in 2009.


failure status or not, it also sets the precedent that utter dictatorial lawlessness will be tolerated, even approved of. you want to talk about damage to the country, that's your fucking damage. if you don't impeach essentially the entire bush admin and then put them on trial and then lock them up for their openly admitted crimes, then your constitution is dead.

failure status or not, it also sets the precedent that utter dictatorial lawlessness will be tolerated, even approved of. you want to talk about damage to the country, that's your fucking damage. if you don't impeach essentially the entire bush admin and then put them on trial and then lock them up for their openly admitted crimes, then your constitution is dead.

The American people have already rejected the dictatorial lawlessness of the Bush administration, amongst other things, it is clearly evidenced by the results of this recently released poll. We are fundamentally displeased with the Bush administration and its actions, and we will take steps to ensure that those actions do not become precedent.

What this poll should really be showing is not that it is a message to Congress to begin impeachment proceedings, no, absolutely not. It should be read by the Presidential candidates for 2008 as a warning. Bush may not be impeached for what he's done, but if his successor keeps this shit up, he or she will be.

Furthermore, Bush is a failure, and that is a fact that's known in the contemporary. Any politician out there will work his ass off to not follow in the footsteps of a failure like Bush. And these charges that have been leveled against him are some of the major reasons why he is perceived as such a failure.

He has a year and a half left people, I mean comon. The time to be doing this was back in 2004-2005, not now.

This is a lame argument. It isn't even an argument! "He only has 18 months left" is no reason not to try and remove him from office. If he utterly fucked up the last 6 1/2 years, what reason is there to believe that he won't continue to fuck up the next year and a half? And why should he get an 18 month free pass instead of being made to face up to his many egregious errors? If you had a delinquent kid who was 16 1/2, who swore up and down that he was moving out when he was 18, does that mean you don't punish him for stealing the car and driving it into the Wal-Mart? "Oh, well he's only here for another year and a half, punishing him won't accomplish anything." Bull. It'll accomplish sending a message that just because you 'got away with crap' so far, that doesn't mean you're above reproach. It'll serve as punishment for the sake of much deserved punishment. And it will make an example where one desperately needs to be made to future politicians. It's talk like yours that makes people nowadays-- people in general, politicians in particular-- think that they can get away with anything because 'society' is getting too lazy, stupid and apathetic to do anything but sit on its fat ass and let it all go. Demand better, or else your consent makes you complicit.

Things aren't looking too bright for Europe?

When was the last time we had a terrorist attack that killed 3000 people in one go?

Were those people from America who did that... no.

Did most of those people become radicals in Europe....yes.

Who attacked London last year? It was English Muslims.

Who were the thousands rioting in France? French Muslims.

People in Europe are trying to do what the US did during world war 2. The US didn't want to get into it, because it didn't effect the US directly. Just because Every country in Europe hasn't been attacked doesn't it mean it won't be. Also, you should look into how Europe will be predominantly Muslim by 2050.

Here is a great example of the problem in Europe: "MOHAMMED Bouyeri stunned the courtroom in Amsterdam Tuesday when he declared that he had murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh ''out of conviction." The Dutch-born son of Moroccan immigrants, who had received a first-class secular education in the Netherlands, told the court, ''If I ever get free, I would do it again." Then the radicalized Islamist turned around and spoke to his victim's mother, Anneke van Gogh, saying: ''I don't feel your pain. I have to admit I don't have any sympathy for you. I can't feel for you because I think you're an infidel."

but would they do it for Randolph Scott?

RAAAAN-dolph SCOTT!

"Alright, we'll do it."

I so need to get that film on DVD...

Too bad they have done anything to be impeached. For some reason making bad decisions for the country at every turn is not enough to get in impeached.

Too bad they have done anything to be impeached. For some reason making bad decisions for the country at every turn is not enough to get in impeached.

Yeah, it is.

Aha. The same percentage that didn't vote for him last time around. ;) Devastating, I'm sure. :p

Yeah, it is.

yeah? where?

yeah? where?

Here, there... everywhere!


Edit:
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/index.html

"It is my experience that most folks believe that impeachment proceedings can only be commenced AFTER all evidence is gathered against an individual. As you can clearly see, the commencement of impeachment proceedings can begin as a mechanism to allow the House Judiciary committee to gather evidence against an office-holder. Once enough evidence is gathered by the House Judiciary committee that warrants Impeachment, the committee introduces its Bill of Indictment, known as the Article(s) of Impeachment to the full House for an up or down vote.

If I am interpreting these procedures correctly, the House Judiciary committee is given great latitude in bringing about impeachment on an office holder. Of course, entering into impeachment proceedings must be done only after much deliberation and all other attempts to correct the negligence of the office holder under scrutiny are exhausted. In some cases, the only censure mechanism left available to Congress is impeachment."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/3/14153/09341

"The Constitution's terse handling of impeachment left open a number of issues that continue to be the subject of debate. Perhaps most important of these is what behavior qualifies as a “high crime and misdemeanor.” While some commentators have argued that impeachable matters are confined to criminal offenses, and Congressman Gerald Ford famously asserted that an impeachable offense was whatever Congress said it was, the balance of opinion and practice holds that impeachable conduct entails some serious abuse of office or breach of public trust. Other vexing issues include: whether impeachment is appropriate for misconduct outside of one's official duties; whether judges can be removed for misbehavior that fails to rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors; and whether the federal courts may judicially review an impeachment conviction. Cutting across these and other issues is the further question of whether the same standards that apply to impeachment of the president should also apply to judges. On this last matter, most experts and practice suggest that at least lower federal judges ought to be more easily removed than the chief executive."
http://www.answers.com/topic/impeachment?cat=biz-fin

A poll says 45% of Americans want the President impeached. 54% want Cheney impeached. Why aren't the Democrats listening to their constituents like they promised? Not that I expect any better from people who are guaranteed a seat for as long as they wish. Also, I think these numbers are actually a bit higher.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070706/pl_afp/uspoliticsbush)

Only ONE choice of those options? :(

Here, there... everywhere!


Edit:
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/index.html

"It is my experience that most folks believe that impeachment proceedings can only be commenced AFTER all evidence is gathered against an individual. As you can clearly see, the commencement of impeachment proceedings can begin as a mechanism to allow the House Judiciary committee to gather evidence against an office-holder. Once enough evidence is gathered by the House Judiciary committee that warrants Impeachment, the committee introduces its Bill of Indictment, known as the Article(s) of Impeachment to the full House for an up or down vote.

If I am interpreting these procedures correctly, the House Judiciary committee is given great latitude in bringing about impeachment on an office holder. Of course, entering into impeachment proceedings must be done only after much deliberation and all other attempts to correct the negligence of the office holder under scrutiny are exhausted. In some cases, the only censure mechanism left available to Congress is impeachment."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/3/14153/09341

"The Constitution's terse handling of impeachment left open a number of issues that continue to be the subject of debate. Perhaps most important of these is what behavior qualifies as a “high crime and misdemeanor.” While some commentators have argued that impeachable matters are confined to criminal offenses, and Congressman Gerald Ford famously asserted that an impeachable offense was whatever Congress said it was, the balance of opinion and practice holds that impeachable conduct entails some serious abuse of office or breach of public trust. Other vexing issues include: whether impeachment is appropriate for misconduct outside of one's official duties; whether judges can be removed for misbehavior that fails to rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors; and whether the federal courts may judicially review an impeachment conviction. Cutting across these and other issues is the further question of whether the same standards that apply to impeachment of the president should also apply to judges. On this last matter, most experts and practice suggest that at least lower federal judges ought to be more easily removed than the chief executive."
http://www.answers.com/topic/impeachment?cat=biz-fin

Again with the pwn'r'ship, DM rocks.
*bows*

Don't impeach Bush. Why? 1) he did not commit any "high crimes or misdemeanors", and did everything within the powers and limits of his office, often with the blessing of the American people. 2) It'd create a political mess that it'd take the nation years to heal from, and one that can be avoided. 3) It'd be a moral lowpoint in this nation. Think of the President what you wish (I myself am disgusted with him at the moment), but most of his actions were done with the blessings of the American people and the Electoral College. It would be morally wrong and completely un-American to try to take the easy way out. Rather, we must see our actions through to the logical conclusion.

Don't impeach Bush. Why?Do tell

1) he did not commit any "high crimes or misdemeanors", and did everything within the powers and limits of his office,Warrentless wretapping is within the limits of his office? when did that happen?

often with the blessing of the American people.:rolleyes: so that's why the democrats control congress?

2) It'd create a political mess that it'd take the nation years to heal from, and one that can be avoided.There's already a political mess. It's called Iraq. And the nation healed rather well from the nixon impeachment.

3) It'd be a moral lowpoint in this nation.This nation has gone far lower.

Think of the President what you wish (I myself am disgusted with him at the moment), but most of his actions were done with the blessings of the American people and the Electoral College.So the people approved of the warentless wiretapping, the continuing presence in Iraq, etc? that's news to me.

It would be morally wrongMorally wrong? how?

and completely un-American to try to take the easy way out.what an odd defenition of americanism you have

Rather, we must see our actions through to the logical conclusion.And the logical conclusion is?

I definitely want Bush impeached. Plus, "impeached" is such a cute word.

And the logical conclusion is?
You take me phrase by phrase, but the last rebuke is the only one that matters. We need to see the job to the finish, and not quit when things get tough. That's the spirit that made this nation great, and the basis of our morality. Abandoning it is jumping ship, and will cause an identity crisis far greater than the 1970s.

You take me phrase by phrase, but the last rebuke is the only one that matters. We need to see the job to the finish, and not quit when things get tough. That's the spirit that made this nation great, and the basis of our morality. Abandoning it is jumping ship, and will cause an identity crisis far greater than the 1970s.

Following your guidelines, when would there ever be a situation that would call for impeachment? Would you follow any madman that gets himself elected president for the sake of some odd conception of a national identity?

You take me phrase by phrase, but the last rebuke is the only one that matters.No, they all matter. You're taken to task. You don't get to cherry-pick ... unless, of course, it's in sincere emulation of the very administration at issue here.
We need to see the job to the finish, and not quit when things get tough.How about when they're WRONG and STUPID? And not getting the obvious drift of experts and people with more sense than them? Hmm?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOwcFVzdEGQ
You're saying it's the argument from the ideologue's perspective. A "moral" argument that costs everyone ELSE.

That's the spirit that made this nation great, and the basis of our morality. Abandoning it is jumping ship, and will cause an identity crisis far greater than the 1970s.Identity crisis? o.0
Is that the *best* you've got?
*shakes head*
You mean, back to coke and zodiac signs and bad hair and utterly putrid sense in clothing? And patchouli?
Oh, the humanity!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

Plus, "impeached" is such a cute word.

I'd like to be imstrawberryed.