What is Digg?102 Comments
- mishaco, on 12/06/2007, -5/+32only the house of representatives can vote to impeach .
but it takes a leader to say the words and get the ball rolling . - ChristPissed, on 12/06/2007, -11/+31Impeach, Prosecute, Incarcerate, Persecute, Execute. Rinse and Repeat for each treasonous neocon.
- headt0thebunker, on 12/06/2007, -9/+19Exactly.....thats the whole damn problem.....these idiots think THEY get to decide......WE all have to follow the laws they pass....BUT THEY GET TO DECIDE if they want to....*****...
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barbarajo ...
"Who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves?" "The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men."¹ And that's what we're talking about. In other words, [the jurisdiction comes] from the abuse or violation of some public trust.
It is wrong, I suggest, it is a misreading of the Constitution for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the President should be removed from office. The Constitution doesn't say that. The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of the body of the legislature against and upon the encroachments of the executive. The division between the two branches of the legislature, the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and to the other the right to judge, the framers of this Constitution were very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judgers -- and the judges the same person.
We know the nature of impeachment. We've been talking about it awhile now. It is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to "bridle" the executive if he engages in excesses. "It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men."² The framers confided in the Congress the power if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with power and grown tyrannical, and preservation of the independence of the executive. - ftcram, on 12/06/2007, -2/+12From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment
Process
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."
Next, 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.
In order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring them from holding future federal office (either elected or appointed). Despite a conviction by the Senate, the defendant remains liable to criminal prosecution. It is possible to impeach someone even after the accused has vacated their office in order to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of their prior office (such as a pension). If a two-thirds majority of the senators present does not vote "Guilty" on one or more of the charges, the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed. - ninjaface, on 12/06/2007, -4/+14ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS *****!!! Let see some.
- flymo, on 12/06/2007, -3/+13eeew. what are YOU doing here? arn't you supposed to be at a church rally or something?
- Acewrap, on 12/06/2007, -2/+10Besides everything else wrong in your post, Biden is from Delaware. Oh, and he's not majority leader. Dolt.
- freff, on 12/06/2007, -1/+9It takes a simple majority from the House to introduce articles of impeachment. Biden is just signaling to Bush in no uncertain terms what the consequences would be if he took it upon himself to act against Iran. As a Senator, he's not part of the initial vote to impeach, but as a leader in the Democratic Party, he's in a position to speak out.
- MacEnvy, on 12/06/2007, -3/+10Biden is from Delaware, not Nevada. Also, he's been a great and long-standing Senator and Bush isn't worthy to even sit at the same table as Biden. That said, I disagree with him on issues such as gun control. But that doesn't really relate to what we're talking about here.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. - qualish, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6Will not happen. No way there would be a super-majority carried in the Senate. This is a pipe dream. Remember, Clinton was impeached but not removed from office.
- appetite, on 12/06/2007, -2/+8Biden's strategy is very good to undermine the potential for war with Iran. If we invade Iran, they now know they would only have to wait it out before the commander in chief is ousted and new leadership ends the aggression. Though I would prefer Bush be impeached now, Biden is actually being pretty strategic in the name of peace. It undermines Bush's threats to Iran and so could possibly avoid a panicked response.
- amoro99, on 12/06/2007, -1/+7FTA:
BIDEN: Yes, I do. I want to stand by that comment I made. ...And if he does--if he does--I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that, but I would lead an effort to impeach him. - inactive, on 12/07/2007, -0/+5Ooooh, a loony leftard twit. Buried.
You should have listened to your Mommy when she told you those drugs would fry your brain. Did you remember to drink your Kool-Aid before you brushed your teeth tonight? Put on your foil beanie and go to bed; it's past your bedtime. - inactive, on 12/06/2007, -5/+10Way to be a leader, Biden....oh wait, Kucinich has been saying this for years.
- cwright213, on 12/06/2007, -1/+6Hey Let's see if this drunk driver hits someone and THEN we'll arrest him.
- tradwolley, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5What good would waterboarding do, its not torture or something cruel like that. /sarcasm
- inactive, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4I am completely aware of the worthlessness of liberals. It's evident all around us. Our public schools are ruined, our public toilets have become their sex playgrounds, our country is being ruined. I merely posted my comment to gage their reaction of hate towards me, to remind me to never drop my guard, to understand who the enemy is, and to identify who must be defeated.
And, in response to being Christian and looking for good in people, man has a sinful nature, and without the saving grace of Jesus Christ, will never find the grace of God.
Regards my friend.
rjwusa - inactive, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4If you're calling me a neocon, you are way, far off base. I am conservative. I believe in small government and frankly, a foreign policy that removes foreign aid going to those who are critical of the United States. I support Israel, and I believe Russia, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia among others, to be hostile towards the U.S. I hardly fit the profile of a neocon.
Before you pop off showing that you are being imbecilic, know the definition of that which you accuse someone else of being.
Try putting down the 'serious' editorial content of Playboy Magazine that is reflected in your avatar by the use of the Playboy Bunny image, and try reading a book.
BTW, anyone using a Playboy Bunny as an avatar exposes himself as being someone just out of puberty. I looked at your profile and the 'favorites' that are saves has one story about Comcast and Bit-torrent. Bit-torrent is for file sharing, including downloading porn, and violating copyrights by stealing video and music files. So, I'd peg you at somewhere under 22, You need some experience in life before you can consider yourself ready to comment with any credibility on politics.
Go read a book and lay off the Internet porn. It'll do you good. < Roll Eyes > - tradwolley, on 12/06/2007, -2/+6Why wait, why not now?
- MikeFallopian, on 12/06/2007, -2/+6What exactly would you impeach Bush for? The invasion of Iraq which was authorized by and willingly funded by Congress? Or perhaps for domestic wiretapping, the constitutionality of which is determined by the judicial branch? You all need to take a civics class.
- inactive, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4Bit torrent is a way to share files. Illegal (Copyrighted) content, MP3s, Porn, almost anything you may seek. Peer to peer file sharing got it's inception for the purpose of sharing pirated software and porn. Warez also was usually associated with illegal file sharing too. I know where bit-torrent came form. It is has legitimate uses, then that's killer.
If the subject of 'Circle Jerk' comes up, I'll discuss it with my sons, as I would of any sexual term that comes up. That is my job as a parent, as opposed as it being the job of the public school system, which it is not. It's my right as a parent. I can tell you, that it'll be many years before my sons ever see the term on Digg, as they'll not have Internet access without parental supervision under my roof. The Internet is a dangerous place.
As far as examining my effectiveness in this world, I give quite a bit of time or money to charitable organizations. Do you do the same, or are you just grasping at straws to try to make an argument for yourself?
Yes, you are correct. Sort of. I hate. I hate the philosophies of liberalism, socialism, communism, Darwinism, Evolution, Islam, homosexuality, and a whole slew of other 'isms'. I don't hate mankind, just a lot of his 'isms'. Before you judge me, know what I stand for. You've shown that you haven't a clue of me. It appears as if it is you who's full of himself.
To you brianary, I ask the following rhetorical question; 'How can I have a battle of wits, then my opponent has no ammunition?'
Good day SIR!
I said GOOD DAY! ;-P - Sultana, on 12/06/2007, -2/+6Why wait for a Bushie to invade Iran? Why not do it NOW!? He'll be gone in a year.
But, then, impeachment will not ever happen to this administration because no one's had a sexual encounter with an intern, yet.
Democratic Congress, at this point in time, is worthless. The whole lot should be thrown out and get real people who care and aren't swayed by lobbyist or corporations. - Acewrap, on 12/06/2007, -3/+6Riiiiight... So, you're saying it was the Democrat's fault, because they they wouldn't choke on Chimpy McFlightsuit's *****. Maybe you ought to take a look at the work Rove has been doing for the past ten years to see who has being divisive. Ass.
- 5urr3al5am, on 12/06/2007, -6/+9na I see only baseless showboating .. not gonna happen
- inactive, on 12/07/2007, -1/+4No offense, rj, but I truly am surprised you were not well aware of the worthless nature of liberals long before you ever heard of digg. I suppose it comes from being Christian and looking for the good in people? That's pretty futile with the lefties - I gave up them completely fifteen or so years ago - but I applaud you for the effort.
- flymo, on 12/06/2007, -3/+6What does it matter? So long as he actually gets impeached, I couldn't care if it was the Queen of England who said she'd do it.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Excellent comment.
- hittnrun, on 12/06/2007, -3/+5Might be a good idea for you to take a deep breath and let the facts sort themselves out. Otherwise, you might end up looking like an idiot...again.
- OrangeTide, on 12/06/2007, -4/+6I assume this is just more empty promises from democrats.
- Chirp08, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3Damage is a nice way of saying BRUTALLY RAPED EVERYTHING AMERICAN OUT OF US
- greendalek, on 12/06/2007, -3/+5I just can't see it happening, not with this Congress. Why in hell wasn't Biden shouting about Constitutionality from the rooftops FIVE YEARS AGO? Oh yeah, that's right. Didn't want to be labeled "unpatriotic."
- inactive, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2Alas, poor brianary, you never met your brain cell, did you?
Oh, BTW, "ooh a neocon moonbat. Buried." was the submission to which I replied, but I do understand how literacy is such a challenge for you. - URnotheonly1, on 12/06/2007, -2/+4Hey you chose Iran, Saddam, over the USA, enough said
- inactive, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2Accusations of lies, by democrats, who have a great tradition of lying for political gain?
- inactive, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2brianary foamed at the mouth as he blathered; "....Boy you Gay Old Pedophiles really have a thing for little boys, don't you?
http://www.republicansexoffenders.com/ ..." I'm not surprised that republicans are caught up in these scandals. The republican party has been hijacked by a bunch of centrists and moderates. The republican party resembles the democrats of 40 years ago. The difference between conservatives and liberals is that while liberals give a free pass to every criminal who represents their cause, who serves in political office, conservatives expect their representatives to act with moral decorum and fortitude, and when our guys get caught in a crime, we expect them to be run out of their job and to be punished. Case in point, George Bush. He violated his oath of office by not securing the borders and by dancing with the Canadians and Mexicans behind closed doors in selling our American sovereignty by setting up a North American super-state without congressional over-site. He has my prayers, but not my support. His administration won't end quick enough for me, and I hope to never see another Bush in office again. While that is new in itself, which you dolts on the left don't care about, you'd rather live under a socialist/humanistic regime, where sex with animals, corpses, children and those of the same sex are the rule of the day and taught in public school as being normal and healthy. And you have the cojones to insinuate that all republicans are pedophiles because of the behavior of a few idiot republicans in power? I don't buy it, and you're are in lock-step with the rest of your ilk when I say, "You're all intellectually dishonest, and you're attempting to hijack this nation to justify your hedonistic and perverse ways". God help us all! < Rolling Eyes > - Stevanoski, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2Bidens hair plugs threaten us more than G. Bush ever will. God Bless G. Bush and the USA.
- Monk22, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1and he was wrong since they apparently stopped the nuclear program in 03'
- Monk22, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1your aware though, that the NIE report was entirely based on a single unverified source that we (US) havent even spoken to personally.
- URnotheonly1, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Its official dood, Iran shut the program down because they thought they we're next
- CrackaPleeze, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2Why wait?
- tucsonwc, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2He does. read his FULL quote.
- Monk22, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1thats whats funny. there is no reason to invade iran. it wont accomplish anything. anything we need done there wont be accomplished through a military invasion. why do you think hes yelling about this so much? becuase it wont happen and then he gets to look like the big tough guy that took on the administration against something that wasnt going to happen in the first place.
- postalblowfish7, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2BFD, without the democratic leadership behind it it will fail. I don't understand why the dems agreed to not impeach in the first place - it's not like they're ***** getting an INCH from the GOP congress.
- tucsonwc, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1How would they have the tech to shoot down our planes? And what were our planes doing over Iranian airspace?
I call shenanigans.
IF that occurred we would take out their air defenses or hit them with cruise missles.
The only other way would be if there was a "hot" cold war going on there, where we are probing their borders.
I could see maybe one plane, but 2? And what KIND of plane? - tucsonwc, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Let's see, the CIA installed the Shah in Iran. The Shah used Savak to terrorize his own people. We used Iran for it's oil and as a buffer/listening post against the Soviet Union. ALL these acts were prior to Carter. How is it his problem? Blame the FRENCH who sent Khomeni BACK to Iran in the first place.
- inactive, on 12/06/2007, -4/+5HAHAHA! So hypocritical and so typical as the whiny libs here. You all negative digg those who either correct your ignorant statements you post as fact, or your negative to be spiteful, hateful and to silence the opposition. You don't care for meaningful dialog especially when it contradicts your biased and hateful pre-conceived notions based on fiction and not fact.
I am learning that the liberals here at Digg are akin to a circle-jerk, or about as useful as one. It is scary that you all have the right to vote and are able to procreate. (The straight ones that is) Let the negative digg-fest by the hateful, intolerant hypocrites begin!
It'll take a huge miracle to see you all change your hard hearts. But I pray for you, knowing that Jesus Christ can accomplish that mighty task! - protium, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2***** Prison. I'd like a televised hanging.
I'll bring the Nachos and dip. - inactive, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment before he declared his candidacy for the presidency. He opposed the war in 2003. He's said there's no evidence for a Iranian nuclear program from the first time it was mentioned by Bush. He is doing this on principle, not for publicity.
Biden, on the other hand... - YoJR, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Biden can't impeach, he is a senator. Only the House has that ability. Shouldn't he know that?
-
Show 51 - 99 of 99 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is