What is Digg?131 Comments
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+64Throw them all out.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+49In America you must pass certified exams to become a hairdresser or a massage therapist, but no exam is required to become a congressman, senator or president.
- Tyrsson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+24Well, it would certainly be a start. However, from the article:
"The grounds set out in the Constitution are vague, and the Democrats do not want to be seen as overreaching."
Let's face it, Democrats seem to consider any opposition to the Executive branch to be "overreaching" these days. They also seem to think it would be "overreaching" to actually enact the will of the people who voted them into the majority in both houses. - FyreGoddess, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20Elections are not on par with certifications. There is nothing that requires elected officials to prove that they understand how the governmental processes work. That's the real problem. Most people vote for the most charismatic person or the one who seems most trustworthy, NOT the one who best understands the principles upon which the country was founded.
That's the problem, too. I mean, just look at the current administration. Bush, on a regular basis, does things or condones things that actively go against the principles of a democratic republic and against the Constitution as a whole. If certifications were required for politics, Bush wouldn't have been allowed to run.
Really, just look at the sheer number of *actual* criminals in our system now. Those who skirt and break laws, not only on a regular basis, but with impunity because, apparently, in this country, the law MAKERS don't actually have to abide by them... - rwalker351, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Impeach him.
- DrTall, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12I agree with you, but I still think it is crap. I swallowed my pride to vote for the Dems and now they're doing nothing with their Congress. The one time I want the Dems to go crazy and do their liberal thing they just sit around on their asses! RAWR!
- fawkesey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12The founders were great men who knew their legal onions..& they must be howling in their repose at what Bush & his cabal have done to their glorious work.
Impeach them all - the US needs another revolution. - Leomarth, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13As odd as it is, in everything else, America wants a smart, qualified professional handling things. For President, we want no such thing. We do not want an economist, or a scientist, we want a person who is a "common man" and who has no more skills than putting a stamp on a piece of legislation.
- Etchii, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15Yea, you have to be a great *****.
$600 haircuts help too - espek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Nothing is going to happen until the Democrats find their spine......until then, it's just business as usual.
- uptown, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8You just can't beat the brilliance of a Congress that is speaking publicly against the warrantless wiretapping program, and Alberto Gonzales' tactics to push it through when Ashcroft was laid up in the hospital ... only to sign off on it before heading out of town for vacation. It just makes no sense.....
The only thing that tops it was this administration's immediate motion to dismiss the charges that had been brought questioning the legality of their past actions citing the new law. Since when do new laws apply to past actions? Nobody is even covering this in the media. If something is illegal when you do it, you've violated the law ... regardless of whether the law changes down the road. - WarpFox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8moonbats. I keep hearing it, but really, what does it mean? I know it is a derogatory term for liberals, but typically insults bear some angle of relevance- thats what makes them insulting. Where did the term come from, anyway?
I should just start calling conservatives "sloppy milkshakes." - Tyrsson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Ummm... Have you forgotten that Clinton was impeached? As memory serves, "he lied" was the charge.
- Blarbo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but Bush did NOT win the majority. He won via the electoral college, an outdated system that he manipulated to his advantage.
- moxley, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7WRONG. You'll be waiting forever I'm afraid as both of those parties are two sides of the same corrupt coin.
Replace "The Democrats" with "The American People" in your statement, and THEN you're on to something!! - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Torture is a crime.
Obstruction of justice is a crime.
Domestic spying was a crime at the time.
Starting a war of aggression is a crime.
Violating the Hatch Act is a crime.
I'm sorry, how many crimes are needed to begin? - OwdenBowden, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7The Founding Fathers are Spinning, so fast, in their graves that if you hooked them up to a generator we could power the world for the next 500 years.
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8At the same time, certifications are explicitly forbidden to get the right to vote. What you're talking about is the point of our government: Anyone can be involved. You don't have to have a certain background or education to participate. As soon as you start limiting who can vote and who can be elected (beyond age, citizenship, and term limits), the powerful will get more powerful because they can just start imposing new limits.
Historically, the elections have been good ways to weed out the people that don't belong. What has happened these last few years, I think, is that our representatives in Congress have decided their political futures are more important than our nation's future. They refuse to act when the choice to do so is clear. That's why they have terms...They don't perform, so we get the chance to ditch them for someone willing to do the job.
Unfortunately, Bush was re-elected because enough people felt he was doing the job that was given to him. If it weren't for term limits, though, I guarantee he wouldn't be re-elected at this point. But that's what's awesome about how everything was set up: He gets forced out regardless of what people think, now.
The point is, the system is in place for all of this to be fixed, and the people that can use it are slacking in their jobs to serve the people they represent. So, the people get to take over and fix it for them. Yeah, it could happen again. But I would rather have the freedom for anyone to vote and participate and be elected than not. - WaterDragon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7There are no 'democrats', there are no 'republicans.'
It is just a charade they put on to manipulate the public, aided by the broadcast media (which they own and control).
Some claim they have decency, but they really only have brutality. Some claim to protect liberty, but they really just endorse unchecked self-indulgence and complacency.
The two-party LIE continues!
Is there a way out?
Even the supreme court has been compromised...ever since they conspired to help steal an election in 2,000, stopping the counting of votes.
The 'America' we thought we once knew is already gone.
An entirely new situation will not be changed by the same old actions from a former situation! - subterfuge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7the bush administration is definitely abusing its power, but democrats have historically done the same thing. i heard someone say that we now have big-government republicans and big-government democrats. that poses a problem for me, because i dont like big governments.
- Homerr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I'm so sick of being disappointed by the Democrats.
- WaterDragon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I'm pretty sure that impeachment proceedings can also be initiated by groups of citizens, by petition. And impeachment of a federal official can also be initiated by a State legislature.
So, we should properly be impeaching all of the members of congress who have been ignoring their duty to impeach the criminals Bush and Cheney, etc.
Unfortunately, such an impeachment, against all those fakers in Congress, would never stand.
They would simply pass a new law, or appeal top their packed supreme court, to block it.
And as long as any armed and trained groups like the military or police, are willing to do their bidding, without question and without regard for any oaths taken to defend the constitution (without thinking, that is) ...we are fukt!
Ultimately, this has become an authoritarian regime, based on firepower and not on reason or principle!
And that is mainly due to the unchecked power of the corporations to lobby and buy candidates and elections, and thus to wield more voting power than the citizens!
If the 'founding fathers' were here today, they would have disappeared into secret prisons, long ago...or perhaps they would have been 'accidentally' killed by 'friendly fire'. - Tyrsson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Believe me, I feel your pain! I never used to believe those who argued that we are a single party government. Events over the past 5 years or so have caused me to reconsider.
- Urusai, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Their act IS together. Together, in lockstep, frogmarching the Constitution off a cliff.
- NotAChickenHawk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"I haven't heard anyone claim Gonzo broke the law in anyway..." Respectfully, I suggest that you have not been paying attention. Lying to Congress is a crime. Gonzo has contradicted his own sworn testimony to Congress. Others have testified before Congress to versions of events that differ wildly from the version of events Gonzo testified to. So it seems pretty clear that he perjured himself, which is a crime and is not partisan politics.
- Sgurdcrimp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"Do not be afraid of enemies; the worst they can do is kill you. Do not be afraid of friends; the worst they can do is betray you. Be afraid of the indifferent; they do not kill or betray. But only because of their silent agreement, betrayal and murder exist on earth."
Bruno Jasienski
The plot of the Indifferent (1937) - fanclerks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4How about illegal wire tapping, going to war for unjust reasons, and firing government lawyers cause they didn't tow the party line? I think that seems to be fairly impeachable offenses.
- JudgeDreddEsq, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Do not forget alcohol and drug testing
- Gir9000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Cannot blame just on one party, If Republicans and Democrats would get their act together this would have been done a long time ago.
- OwdenBowden, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Elections - as we have all seen - are now 100 % fixed. Especially any of them that are done electronically. These people will always get into office somehow. With that in mind and being a Natural American Citizen I want to have the right to be part of the Health Insurance pool that all of these senators and congress / governmental people are part of. I figure that I would be paying around $1.00 a day for that full coverage.
- Grumps, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4What do you mean Bush's impeachment is off the table? Is in the courthouse now? God, will they ever impeach him? Get rid of Bush, Dick, Gonzales, and Nancy
- Bajeda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Gonzales has done plenty of things to deserve impeachment. Read the article, they list specific examples.
- hiphoc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Its a term the CentCom and other govt' propagandists use to demean anyone who disagrees with policies. Tin foil hats, moonbats, Kooks, all terms I NEVER hear in my daily life. Just a few "but, but but, Clinton" type of people Hegalian Dialectic.
- jhshukla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3unfortunately there is no certification for being a voter either.
- Tyrsson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I agree. However, I would quickly point out that the founders surely began their howling long before Bush came into power. Sadly, we are only now beginning to hear those voices beyond the grave. I sincerely hope we are not too late.
- uptown, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3....which sadly has evolved into a 2 year marketing campaign with consultants to tell you what you should believe and what you should say ....
- TheSabre, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3United States Code 26 Section 1. Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended.
What's your point? - NotAChickenHawk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3For once, I'm going with the "b-b-b-b-but Clinton did it!" argument. Lying under oath - AKA perjury - has been established as grounds for impeachment. So your statement: "Neither "He lied", "He is stupid" nor "He maintains an adversarial political opinion to mine" are grounds for impeachment." is a bit misleading. Lie under the correct circumstances (which Gonzo did) and it *is* ground for impeachment.
- ronaldinho, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I know the Dems want to milk the hate that the general public has of Bush and his cronies, but not doing anything (such as impeaching someone) is ridiculous. That's only to their party's advantage but it doesn't help the citizens. I want to see someone being punished for abusing their power, and I think Gonzales would be a great target to nail. And if he resigns before getting impeached, good, I don't want that person to be in charge of anything.
I can't believe Clinton gets impeached because he lied about getting a blowjob and not Gonzales nor Cheney nor Bush when they plunged this country into absolute chaos with their lies and abuse of power - TheSabre, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I like how people use the Constitution to their advantage when it suits them, but complain about the Electoral College or not permitting examinations to be elected.
- Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Regardless of it is difficult to get things done, Democrats promised the moon during their 2006 campaign and are failing spectacularly. If they couldn't get things done, they shouldn't have promised those things. Hell they can't even keep the promise of "getting rid of the culture of corruption" William Jefferson anyone? Nancy Pelosi promoted him to a committee with access to classified information. You don't see a problem with that?? If it were a Republican, that would have been on the front page of Digg in 2 minutes.
- edwartica, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And the big prize is up for grab next year, so they wouldn't want to do anything to mess that chance up.
/sarcasm
I will more than likely vote for the democrat that wins, simply because of social welfare issues, but dammt, I'm sick of them playing politics. I want to see them actually do their jobs! - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You should definitely start a new career teaching people law. You're so good at it. Or maybe you could teach them how to make stupid assumptions about other people's personal appearance based on their internet postings.
- fanclerks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The nice thing about impeachment is that the terms are loose enough to be able to impeach for any reason the Congress sees fit.
- Godlike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Edwards has been heading the front line like a tank trying to get Gonzales to resign so that they wouldn't have to waste time impeaching him.
- oldhick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Great men aren't perfect. Thus, we have two words, great and perfect.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"The lawyers he can fire for what ever reason he wants."
Not if his reason is to obstruct justice. Then it's a crime. - digitalslavery, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2better late than never
- jefu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Perhaps we should send him to guantanamo (or one of those other places we don't admit exist) for a few months or years of (um) interrogation to find out just what he did.
- feckineejit, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3bring out the catapult, and shoot them all into the next state.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 131 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is