Debate on Cheney impeachment averted

[masterblaster72 0]

from here:

Quote

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table"

Another example of the democratic majority having absolutely no balls...they even had help from republicans to make the discussion a reality.

A debate on impeachment would have been entirely appropriate, and called for.

Bravo to Kucinich for introducing the measure.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[ryoder 1,384]

Quote

from here:

Quote

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table"

Another example of the democratic majority having absolutely no balls...they even had help from republicans to make the discussion a reality.

A debate on impeachment would have been entirely appropriate, and called for.

Bravo to Kucinich for introducing the measure.

From Bill Maher on his show last week:

"Why can't the Democrats grow a ball? I'm not asking for two here; Even just one would be nice."

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Amazon 7]

I think impeachment at this point is a waste of time. They have harmed America in irreversible ways.

They have started a war of greed for their friends and have prosecuted their wars with great incompetence causeing the deaths of thousands of our citizens and the people of Iraq.

Turn them over to the World Court IF they leave office for war crimes, do not let them prosper from their actions as so many friends of the administration have done.

[ryoder 1,384]

Quote

I think impeachment at this point is a waste of time. They have harmed America in irreversible ways.

They have started a war of greed for their friends and have prosecuted their wars with great incompetence causeing the deaths of thousands of our citizens and the people of Iraq.

Turn them over to the World Court IF they leave office for war crimes, do not let them prosper from their actions as so many friends of the administration have done.

It is not too late for impeachment as long as those jackasses are still in office, running the country into the ground.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[lawrocket 3]

Interesting Republican tactics on the interesting Democrat tactics.

The Dems have an issue - "Cheney is a bad bad boy." The Dems have this idea "Impeach Cheney." But saying Cheney should be impeached is much more effective than actually trying to impeach him.

Republicans say, "Shit or get off the pot. Here, we'll help you."

The Dems say, "Noooooooo! We can't ACTUALLY impeach him. That would mean actually doing it. We can't do that!!!"

The Dems DO need to grow some balls, and I am convinced they will do so - AFTER the 2008 election, assuming they win. For the Dems to actually DO something to fix problems would be to kill off their issues heading into the election, which is bad for business.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

from here:

Quote

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table"

Another example of the democratic majority having absolutely no balls...they even had help from republicans to make the discussion a reality.

A debate on impeachment would have been entirely appropriate, and called for.

Bravo to Kucinich for introducing the measure.

Shouldn't Bush and Rove be included in this disscussion?

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Shouldn't Bush and Rove be included in this disscussion?

ALL of Congress should be involved in it, too. Put them ALL to lie detectors about exactly what they thought were the reasons for going to war.

The Democrats are enaged in "plausible deniability." The Democrats supported the effort to go to war, and now claim that they were lied to. If they bought it (which they didn't) then how fucking stupid are they saying they are? "Bush is an idiot and a moron. And he's a liar! We've always known he was an idiot and a moron, but who would have thunk that he would be smart enough to pull the wool over our eyes."

They are ALL full of shit. A congressman told me prior to the war that they were going to Iraq to clean up the block, and once the people of the middle east saw what freedom was like, they'd follow suit. "Broken windows."

They ALL knew it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Shouldn't Bush and Rove be included in this disscussion?

ALL of Congress should be involved in it, too. Put them ALL to lie detectors about exactly what they thought were the reasons for going to war.

The Democrats are enaged in "plausible deniability." The Democrats supported the effort to go to war, and now claim that they were lied to. If they bought it (which they didn't) then how fucking stupid are they saying they are? "Bush is an idiot and a moron. And he's a liar! We've always known he was an idiot and a moron, but who would have thunk that he would be smart enough to pull the wool over our eyes."

They are ALL full of shit. A congressman told me prior to the war that they were going to Iraq to clean up the block, and once the people of the middle east saw what freedom was like, they'd follow suit. "Broken windows."

They ALL knew it.

Well said

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

from here:

Quote

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table"

Another example of the democratic majority having absolutely no balls...they even had help from republicans to make the discussion a reality.

A debate on impeachment would have been entirely appropriate, and called for.

Bravo to Kucinich for introducing the measure.

As much as I would like to see it happen, if we did the Repubs would use it as fodder to say the Dems wanted to get majority so they can waste millions on an impeachment as the Repukes did. It is the right thing not to, as removal would only relieve this country from turd for what, less than a year, maybe 6 months? And then skew the 08 election and open the door for irregular things. The Dems have already won, why change things? I think we'll see Dems for the next several terms, so why muddy the waters. As a footbal analogy, the lesser teams comes out using trick plays and crazy shit, the better team just does what they do best and virtually always the better team wins, even if the lesser team gets a little lead early.

I too would love to see the criminal disgraced with an impeachment, but why risk the future with a bit of fun. History will really show what this pos and the last 3 Repukes have done to this country, esp fiscally.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

if we did the Repubs would use it as fodder to say the Dems wanted to get majority so they can waste millions on an impeachment as the Repukes did.

So, are you saying that the public would buy the republican argument? Which would lose the election for the Dems? Are you saying the Dems are less about doing the right thing than winning an election? If so, I am in full agreement with you.

Quote

It is the right thing not to, as removal would only relieve this country from turd for what, less than a year, maybe 6 months?

When is it EVER right to keep a danger to the country in power?

Quote

I think we'll see Dems for the next several terms, so why muddy the waters.

This will only happen if the Republicans take the House or Senate (or both) in 2008 or 2010.

Quote

but why risk the future with a bit of fun.

Because it is the right thing to do. Party politics is not.

Quote

History will really show what this pos and the last 3 Repukes have done to this country, esp fiscally.

Much like history will show that the death was caused by the loss of blood. Sure, we could have stopped it 18 months previously, but why lose a dead body as a campaign issue? It's always better to have a dead body than a live body as a campaign issue. Why stop the bleeding now?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Shouldn't Bush and Rove be included in this disscussion?

ALL of Congress should be involved in it, too. Put them ALL to lie detectors about exactly what they thought were the reasons for going to war.

The Democrats are enaged in "plausible deniability." The Democrats supported the effort to go to war, and now claim that they were lied to. If they bought it (which they didn't) then how fucking stupid are they saying they are? "Bush is an idiot and a moron. And he's a liar! We've always known he was an idiot and a moron, but who would have thunk that he would be smart enough to pull the wool over our eyes."

They are ALL full of shit. A congressman told me prior to the war that they were going to Iraq to clean up the block, and once the people of the middle east saw what freedom was like, they'd follow suit. "Broken windows."

They ALL knew it.

>>>>>>>>The Democrats supported the effort to go to war, and now claim that they were lied to.

Uh, they were. Ken Mehlam, former RNC dickwipe said as much on Meet the Press by way of;

-Congress had the exact same intel as the pres
-Er, I mean COngress had basically the same intel as the pres.......

Horseshit, dickhead set up COngress by telling them lies, and the one defect from Wisconsin is now considered a genius, then probably thought a... terrorist. Get it?

>>>>>>>If they bought it (which they didn't) then how fucking stupid are they saying they are?

In the following weeks and months after 911, if a politician did anything but vote to go, go, go, go he/she would be chastized. Same way cops get funding and other branches of gov they wait for perfect timing and require legislators to react w/o choice. Right now, if teh Desm cut off the gifts to Bush's buddies war machine, the reaction from the Repukes is: how could you starve the troops. Get it?

>>>>>>And he's a liar! We've always known he was an idiot and a moron

Didn't you vote for him? I think far more of the criminal than do I think of Bush voters.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Shouldn't Bush and Rove be included in this disscussion?

ALL of Congress should be involved in it, too. Put them ALL to lie detectors about exactly what they thought were the reasons for going to war.

The Democrats are enaged in "plausible deniability." The Democrats supported the effort to go to war, and now claim that they were lied to. If they bought it (which they didn't) then how fucking stupid are they saying they are? "Bush is an idiot and a moron. And he's a liar! We've always known he was an idiot and a moron, but who would have thunk that he would be smart enough to pull the wool over our eyes."

They are ALL full of shit. A congressman told me prior to the war that they were going to Iraq to clean up the block, and once the people of the middle east saw what freedom was like, they'd follow suit. "Broken windows."

They ALL knew it.

Well said

And written

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>>>>>>>>The Democrats supported the effort to go to war, and now claim that they were lied to.

Uh, they were. Ken Mehlam, former RNC dickwipe said as much on Meet the Press by way of;

-Congress had the exact same intel as the pres
-Er, I mean COngress had basically the same intel as the pres.......

Then why did a congressman tell me something entirely different once I said, "What you are saying makes no sense?"

Quote

In the following weeks and months after 911, if a politician did anything but vote to go, go, go, go he/she would be chastized.

Again, gutless, ball-less sacks of shit. "Oooh, I cant' say 'Bullshit' to this! I'll lose campaign funding. I mught get chastised. Oh, boo hoo hoo. Bush is MAKING me vote this way."

Don't look, but you made an excuse for Dems being chickenshit. And the same excuse applies to republicans, too. By the way, here is a list of Senators who had balls to vote against the war (number 23 - and 17 are still in office):


Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI) - defeated and left in Jan. 2007
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ) - left Senate in Jan. 2006 to become governor of New Jersey
Dayton (D-MN) - retired in Jan. 2007
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL) - he retired from Senate in Jan. 2005
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT) - retired and left Jan. 2007
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD) - retired Jan. 2007
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Quote

if teh Desm cut off the gifts to Bush's buddies war machine, the reaction from the Repukes is: how could you starve the troops. Get it?

Yep. Of course, the Dems lack sufficient balls to do it, don't they. Perhaps it is because ending the war is not as important as winning the election. So what's another few hundred or thousand deaths? So long as they win in 08...

Get my drift?

Quote

>>>>>>And he's a liar! We've always known he was an idiot and a moron

Didn't you vote for him?

Nope. I never voted for Bush (either of them). I'll publish my POTUS voting since I was 18:

1992 - Andre Marrou
1996 - Ross Perot (the only time I voted to keep someone OUT instead of voting my conscience)
2000 - Harry Browne
2004 - Mike Badnarik

I have thus NEVER voted for a Republican OR Democrat in a presidential election. Because I cannot tell a difference IN PRACTICE between these parties. The Republicans and Dems say plenty of different things, but sex, alcohol, money, power and votes are the driving forces of both of them.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>So, are you saying that the public would buy the republican argument? Which would lose the election for the Dems? Are you saying the Dems are less about doing the right thing than winning an election? If so, I am in full agreement with you.

Yes, exactly. And we want to get YOUR party out of office, even if it means letting one of YOUR criminals go. It's the American way, hell, we let Sammy the Bull go on 26 paid murders (5 years) so we could get Gotti. BTW, how do you feel about YOUR president running the dollar from over 1.5 times the Canadian to 6 cents< the Canadian buck in < 7 years? After all, you are basically a fiscal ight guy, youmust be proud; be sure to vote in another loser.

>>>>>>>>>When is it EVER right to keep a danger to the country in power?

I dunno, I was gonna ask you the same thing, I mean, you're a lawyer, you certainly could see the writing on the wall and you reelected the criminal? Now you'll say you didn't vote that way ...... yea right. But to keep the criminal party out for the next several terms by lasting out the turd for a year is worth it, it's kinda like colatteral damage as we killed 200-300k women and children - trying to write in terms you can agree with.

>>>>>>>This will only happen if the Republicans take the House or Senate (or both) in 2008 or 2010.

Whatever, all we can say for sure is that Dems will take more seats in both houses and the White House in 08. Can't guess for the next midterm.

>>>>>>>>Because it is the right thing to do. Party politics is not.

From a guy who likely has the opinion killing 200-300k women and children with the bombs was the right thing to do, I think suffering for another year and 3 months, really 6 months by the time of removal is teh right thing to do. Again, comming off as petty as the Repukes did over the impeachemnt and then discovering Lott was fucking his secretary and pardoning Libby, I think the Dems have the sense to not drop that low and be as pathetic as the Repukes and they will bide their time. I'm really sorry, but you will have to deal with Hillary. I mean I am real fucking sorry, should I say..... I feel your pain?

>>>>>>>>>Much like history will show that the death was caused by the loss of blood. Sure, we could have stopped it 18 months previously, but why lose a dead body as a campaign issue? It's always better to have a dead body than a live body as a campaign issue. Why stop the bleeding now?

To be real, removal is HIGHLY unlikely. Even your parties first loser to be impeached, removal was as close as 1 vote, and he was impeached for many things, esp usurpation of power as he ignored Congress, so they had it for him. There are enough robots in your party that the 67 needed votes would not be met, but the adverse pub to the Dems would be realized, so it would work well for your party.

Gee, let me say it again, I'm real fucking sorry that your employer taxes may go up as Hillary is elected, perhaps consider closing shop in protest.

[ryoder 1,384]

Quote

For the Dems to actually DO something to fix problems would be to kill off their issues heading into the election, which is bad for business.

I won't argue that is their reasoning, but it is dead wrong. In the last election a lot of people voted for Democrats because we saw it as the only way to stop Dubya. So what happened when they won? Nothing. In fact the assholes even voted to rubberstamp some of the illegal crap Dubya was doing. There was an old cliche from the '60's:

"If you aren't part of the solution, then you are part of the problem."

Instead of doing the right thing (impeaching Dubya & Cheney), what they have been doing is collusion. By sitting on their hands instead of tackling the problem, they have already lost credibility with me. The only thing left to do is vote against incumbents, regardless of party affiliation.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[rushmc 18]

Ah, the reason they dropped it is because they have no evidence to support the bs. The only reason he brought it up is to get money and pacify the rabid from the moveon.org type groups.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

Ah, the reason they dropped it is because they have no evidence to support the bs. The only reason he brought it up is to get money and pacify the rabid from the moveon.org type groups.

I'm sure Mr. Kucinich had evidence for the impeachment, otherwise he would not have risked looking like a dumbass if he were to get the approval from his democratic colleagues and other republicans to go forward with the debate.

Further to that, I think it is the will of the people to have this discussion about his impeachment. I know very few people who support DICK Cheney and his extremist actions as VP.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Ah, the reason they dropped it is because they have no evidence to support the bs. The only reason he brought it up is to get money and pacify the rabid from the moveon.org type groups.

I'm sure Mr. Kucinich had evidence for the impeachment, otherwise he would not have risked looking like a dumbass if he were to get the approval from his democratic colleagues and other republicans to go forward with the debate.

Further to that, I think it is the will of the people to have this discussion about his impeachment. I know very few people who support DICK Cheney and his extremist actions as VP.

Extremist actions huh.

It is sad to me that all of this has been said so many times (with out any backing) that so many take it to be some kind of sick truth.

Fact, no articles of impeach were brought because there is no evidence to back it up. If Mr flying saucer has the goods then it is time to come clean.

One more time. All things brought up about Iraq and SH were said over and over by many in congress years before GWB and Cheney were even running. Did they all lie too?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

(with out any backing)

Of course. Because facts can simply be nullified by

lots of laughing smileys!!!

and saying

thanks for the entertainment, I needed a laugh today!

right?!

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

And we want to get YOUR party out of office,

Quit calling it MY party. It is NOT my party.

Quote

even if it means letting one of YOUR criminals go.

Yep. That's it. It's not about what is the right thing, it's about winning or losing. YOUR party will win. The OTHER party, and the AMERICAN PEOPLE will lose.

Makes sense. By the way, this is the Republican way of doing things, too. I guess it's why I so despise the "major" parties.

Quote

how do you feel about YOUR president running the dollar from over 1.5 times the Canadian to 6 cents< the Canadian buck in < 7 years? After all, you are basically a fiscal ight guy, youmust be proud;

I have no feelings on it, really. I see pluses and minuses. It makes foreign cars more expensive, as well as other goods manufactured abroad, and oil, but since I consume very little and use very little fuel, it makes little difference to me personally.

As an aside, do you give any credit whatsoever to the brilliance of the monetarists in Europe or Canada? Or is it just Bush's fuckup.

As another aside, are you a closeted monetarist? If so, you should look into the writings of the late great Milton Friedman and his wife, Rose, as well as David Laidler. Read up on Greenspan and "irrational exuberance," which we saw in the tech boom and bust in the 1990's and the property bubble of the last 4 or 5 years.

Quote

Now you'll say you didn't vote that way ...... yea right.

Check HERE from 2003 - "I am not a bushite.http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=690146#690146

Or from 2003 - "I did not support the war in Iraq." http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=572186#572186

What do you mean NOW I'll say I didn't vote that way? I never said I did. In fact, I NEVER did.

Quote

But to keep the criminal party out for the next several terms by lasting out the turd for a year is worth it, it's kinda like colatteral damage as we killed 200-300k women and children - trying to write in terms you can agree with.

I do NOT agree with it. I never DID agree with it. And I disagree that "collateral damage" is worth it in these situations.

However, it seems to be something that YOU agree with. You compare the Democrats to a war machine that will take out 200-300k women and children to get to the final objective. I find this viewpoint to be personally abhorrent.

Why do you so support the idea of collateral damage? Do you support the idea of burning your house down so that rioters cannot? It's what you are arguing.

Quote

From a guy who likely has the opinion killing 200-300k women and children with the bombs was the right thing to do,

I'm a little sick of your venting.

Quote

I think suffering for another year and 3 months, really 6 months by the time of removal is teh right thing to do.

So what you are saying is that Cheney's crimes aren't worth impeachment.

Quote

I think the Dems have the sense to not drop that low and be as pathetic as the Repukes and they will bide their time.

I disagree. I think the Dems found out in the Alito and Roberts confirmation hearings that the shit may have worked on Bork, but hitting below the belt doesn't sit well witht he American public.

Quote

I'm real fucking sorry that your employer taxes may go up as Hillary is elected, perhaps consider closing shop in protest.

I can't close my shop, you know. I've got 6 employees who count on me to feed their children and keep them insured. You know, the thing that only government is supposed to do.

What's next? Tie me to the stakes and light a fire under me for heresy?

Seeing as how your subjective believes of my political affiliation are absolutely incorrect when objective reality is taken into consideration, I believe that the entirety of this post is similarly fantastic. Which is a shame, because we agree on certain points.

My personal belief is that it is NOT sufficient to impeach Cheney. My problem is that the Democrats should not forward ideas they have no idea of following through with. The reason is that it was not based on "principle." It was based on gamesmanship by the Dems. They played a game that the Republicans won.

I am one who believes that principle is something for which "losing" is not an appropriate thing. If I was ever prosecuted for my beliefs, I am making damned sure that there is enough evidence to convict me.

But why don't you use what I say against me, instead of your interpretations of my Republican leanings?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>Then why did a congressman tell me something entirely different once I said, "What you are saying makes no sense?"

I can't explain why Larry Craig told you that?

>>>>>>>>>Again, gutless, ball-less sacks of shit. "Oooh, I cant' say 'Bullshit' to this! I'll lose campaign funding. I mught get chastised. Oh, boo hoo hoo. Bush is MAKING me vote this way."

I agree that the Dems aretoo nutless, but as opposed to the trash that the Repukes are, I'll take nutless. If Bush had done nothing during his term, we would be far better off.

BTW, saying no to something isn't the same as initiating a campaign that will benefit the criminal party. Simply not choosing to impeach a president isn't refusing to enact something. Hell, if you read the geniuses on here they would tell you that there still are WMD's there, just well hidden, so then there is no basis fo which to impeach, right? - I know you'll just skip that point -

>>>>>>>>>Don't look, but you made an excuse for Dems being chickenshit.

I do think the Dems are too chickenshit, are you willing to admit your party is that of fiscal scum criminals? NNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooo.....even tho you know it's true. Again, if we listen to Repuke garbage, we would larn that there were WMD's, just well hidden, hence no impeachable offense. Sorry counselor, no Corpus Delecti.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>By the way, here is a list of Senators who had balls to vote against the war (number 23 - and 17 are still in office):

The very forst vote, could have been for the Patriot act, but I thought it was for war funding. Hmmm, maybe the 98-1 senatorial vote was for the PA.

>>>>>>>>By the way, here is a list of Senators who had balls to vote against the war (number 23 - and 17 are still in office):


Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI) - defeated and left in Jan. 2007
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ) - left Senate in Jan. 2006 to become governor of New Jersey
Dayton (D-MN) - retired in Jan. 2007
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL) - he retired from Senate in Jan. 2005
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT) - retired and left Jan. 2007
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD) - retired Jan. 2007
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)


I keep looking and I can't find a Republican there. I guess Jeffords if you count Repub defectors.

>>>>>>>>>>Yep. Of course, the Dems lack sufficient balls to do it, don't they. Perhaps it is because ending the war is not as important as winning the election. So what's another few hundred or thousand deaths? So long as they win in 08...

Get my drift?


And winning the election means gaining control --> hence leaving Iraq. Losing the election means means at least 4 more years of trash.

>>>>>>>>>1992 - Andre Marrou
1996 - Ross Perot (the only time I voted to keep someone OUT instead of voting my conscience)
2000 - Harry Browne
2004 - Mike Badnarik

Wait, you voted for a Libertarian or 2, oh, wait, wait,.... that's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay different than a Repub *sigh*

>>>>>>I have thus NEVER voted for a Republican OR Democrat in a presidential election. Because I cannot tell a difference IN PRACTICE between these parties.

Right, same thing:

1) Gay rights / marriage

Dems for them
Repubs tried to pass a const amendment against them

2) Social svs

Dems for them
Repubs do all they can to avoid them

3) Taxes for the rich

Dems raise them
Repubs lower them

4) Corporate immunity

Dems against it
Repubs for it

5) Gov intrusion

Dems against it
Repubs for it

6) Socialized medicine

Dems for it
Repubs against it

7) Labor unions

Dems support them
Repubs fight them

8) Abortion

Dems for the right
Repubs against the right

9) Stem cell research

Dems for it
Repubs against it

10) Deficit spending

Dems Against it
Repubs for it


So I see what you mean, carbon copies....

>>>>>>>>The Republicans and Dems say plenty of different things, but sex, alcohol, money, power and votes are the driving forces of both of them.

And the outcomes are completely different. Look at what Clinton inherited and what he left. Look at what each of teh 3 idiots inherited and what they left.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

(with out any backing)

Of course. Because facts can simply be nullified by

lots of laughing smileys!!!

and saying

thanks for the entertainment, I needed a laugh today!

right?!

I await proof backing your position

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>Fact, no articles of impeach were brought because there is no evidence to back it up.



Agreed!!! Sorry Lawrocket, butt there is no evidence, hence no impeachment grounds..... now, can we hold our breath so we can get thru the next year and 2 months so we can ignore the trash party for several terms? Nothing to see here, just get thru it.

[rushmc 18]

From the Hill

Leading The News

Republicans keep Cheney impeachment bill alive
By Jonathan E. Kaplan | Posted: 11/6/07 4:35 p.m. [ET]
November 06, 2007
House Republicans on Tuesday prevented Democratic leaders from blocking a resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney.


The vote to table the privileged resolution, offered by Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinch, began as a largely party-line vote to kill the measure, but Republicans developed a strategy to force Democrats to debate the resolution by supporting Kucinich. GOP leaders felt as though it was in their interest to debate the measure because it would make Democrats look bad.

After more than an hour of waiting for the vote to close, the motion to table the resolution failed by a vote of 162-251 after Democratic leaders failed to convince a group of liberal caucus members to side with them.

Republican lawmakers and aides credited Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) for coming up with the idea.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Interesting move. Hard to beleive that the R's would go this route if there was evidence and they were protecting thier own

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

(with out any backing)

Of course. Because facts can simply be nullified by

lots of laughing smileys!!!

and saying

thanks for the entertainment, I needed a laugh today!

right?!

I await proof backing your position

Search through your own posts -- the facts have been presented to you ad nauseum here. I refuse to beat my head against a wall.

You might do best searching for laughing smiley faces, if that's possible.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.