What is Digg?246 Comments
- toasty168, on 10/12/2007, -53/+262would be a dream come true
- FyreGoddess, on 10/12/2007, -19/+124I don't like that business about impeachment being used as a tool to influence the President. Seems to me that impeachment should be used as intended, to punish criminal acts and not to coerce him into doing something he's against.
As much as I agree that Bush should be held accountable for the wrongdoings of his administration, this smacks of bullying. "If you don't do what we want you to do, then we'll impeach you. We'll do it. We swear. And... if you DO, then we'll just leave you alone."
There is something seriously wrong with this. - mdnash, on 10/12/2007, -38/+141its only the begining. so much legislation needs to pass to undo what dictator bush has already done
- CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -28/+108I just hope they don't drag their feet like they have been doing. The Democrats are so afraid about ***** up and losing the '08 election that they're acting a bit too slow for my taste. But, I guess slow progress is better than no progress.
- RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+67I don't know why you're being Dugg down, you are exactly right.
If you're going to impeach, then impeach. Threatening to impeach to force policy is akin to blackmailing someone in my opinion. - chase001, on 10/12/2007, -21/+76What is there to consider? The crimes of this administration make Nixon look like a Girl Scout. On top of that the Project For A New American Century want to change the very fabric of this country and is stripping Congress of it's powers and giving them to the Unitary Executive aka King.
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -10/+63Precisely....
This is getting old...
congressman: "I tell ya, we're gonna do it..... Just you watch."
**a few days go by**
congressman: "Like I said; we're gonna do it..... Just you watch."
**a week goes by**
congressman: "SERIOUSLY, we're gonna do it..... You better listen up!"
**a few weeks go by**
congressman: "That's it! He's ignored us enough... We're going to impeach the president!!!"
citizen: "So, have you done it yet?"
congressman: "No, but we WILL! Just you watch." - Skye16, on 10/12/2007, -13/+60@Venkatsubramane
You are wrong. So very wrong.
50.7% is *hardly* the "vast majority*. Clearly more than 48.3%, yes, but hardly a "vast" difference by any stretch of the imagination. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -16/+55It's time to stop considering and start doing.
- InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -9/+47Impeachment doesn't remove the chimp from office, but it's the first step. It opens the door for the senate to put Bush on trial which can result in his removal.
btw: I think the plans are to impeach both bush and cheney since they are co-conspirators. I don't think we need to worry about "president cheney"... unless bush loses his next battle with salted snack foods. - CZzyzx41, on 10/12/2007, -3/+40Apparently "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" is this years' "O RLY".
- underthelinux, on 10/12/2007, -3/+38Impeach doesn't mean kick out of office. Its not like once you're impeached, you leave immediately. I think a lot of people forget that. So when you impeach someone, then it goes to trial or whatever else happens next. The point is, impeachment means "we think they did something wrong, there should be an investigation." It's not an "oh, we don't like his decisions, lets get him out" (even though it may ultimately lead to that).
- kypen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+36This is such an important point that I can't digg you up enough. Well put.
- BigDane, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29"The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government." --- FDR
- CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -9/+34The problem is that if they impeach him then basically they have to take action against the whole cabinet, CIA Administrators, and other random people. Can they charge Bush without Cheney, Rice, Rove, Former Defence Secretary (forgot his name). Once they slam the gavel on Bush, the ***** will hit the fan, and we'll find things out that we never even wanted to.
- shaun944, on 10/12/2007, -6/+28who said we never wanted to find out? Hot water keeps people clean. Its more than past time the heat got turned up on all members of the US government, regardless of party. What annoys me about this 'threat' is the political BS that is still overriding the simple issue of justice: if the guy has done something that is an impeachable offense, don't threaten to impeach him if he doesn't do what you want (which is not justice but blackmail), impeach the SOB and let him face justice - party loyalties are partly responsible for getting us into this mess. I want politicians whose loyalty is to the Constitution and the citizens, not to furthering their personal ambitions.
- mrswirl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Many scholars believe that the Founding Fathers intended impeachment to be used much more often that it has so far. As Murtha described, it is one of the powers of checks and balances specifically expressed in the Constitution that Congress has against the Presidency and is not just to be used as a punishment for criminal activities. Jefferson believed that impeachment should be used frequently to remove those that have become too 'comfortable' in public office - especially the President. (Remember that Jefferson was opposed to a strong central government believing in the sanctity of States' Rights).
One of the greatest fears that our founders had at the time was an over-reaching monarchy and there was great concern that a powerful President would extend powers to himself beyond the scope of the Constitution.
Impeachment became pretty much verboten over the years except for the most grievous of acts - (at least until Clinton) - and the fact that it's been used only 3 times in our country's history does not mean that its original function was only to be used for the most serious of crimes.
If you're a strict Constitutionalist, then impeachment should always be an option for influencing our public officials - that's what was intended by the Founding Fathers. - emitemirp, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26RE: Jobascord
Wow, you sure sound like a babbling idiot with that rant. For everything you brought up, you never once mentioned anything relevant: like how Bush has consistently shirked his responsibility as a public servant. Let me remind you the oath that all public servants and military personnel (or something very similar) take:
"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
The president et al. took a very similar oath when they office. Open your eyes and see how the current administration has done a lousy job in protecting and defending the Constitution (habeas corpus just to give one example).
Personally, I think your blind allegiance to a politician AND NOT TO YOUR COUNTRY is disheartening. What happened to honor, duty, country? - dognose, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20That would make it two in a row impeached presidents. Boy can we pick them.
- alexology, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26As much as I would love to hear "Former President GWB", I shudder at the thought of hearing "President Cheney".
- ringworm, on 10/12/2007, -11/+26@Venkatsubramane
Yeah, I don't think "vast" is the correct modifier for that sentence...even in the one election he won where he did get the majority of the votes. - Noctem, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Clinton was impeached for lying under oath (AKA Perjury) and obstruction of justice, not for having sex with an intern.
- tinkertim, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21There's something seriously wrong with nearly every thing this administration has done since seizing power. And you are correct, this is a dangerous precedent if not done correctly. You can not impeach a president who is simply taking what they feel to be the right stance. You can impeach a president for going to war on information he knew to be fabricated or false. I'd reserve judgement for when / if the proceedings start. Passion is great when fueled by fact instead of a (very big) what if.
I urge democrats to remember, whatever strings you pull to get rid of Bush, Republicans can pull when the next Democrat takes office (and will). Clinton is the posterboy for this.
I'd personally like to send every member of congress a T shirt that says "I cost money and occupy space". - FearlessFreep, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14"Clinton was impeached for lying under oath"
Which is the important point. You can't just impeach the president for doing something you don't like (or worse even, impeach for purely political grandstanding), you have to catch him in the act. To impeach Bush you have to have evidence that he actually broke the law. - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13You know... Why don't y'all put a story that actually...... A STORY!
I'm sure opposing parties have long "considered" impeaching an opposing president. - AntBing, on 10/12/2007, -10/+19That's right, impeach away... He will still serve out his term just as Clinton did. As doctorsax said impeachment does NOT mean removal from office.
- ColdSnickersBar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13@Jonascord
As a Marine Corporal who would love to see Bush impeached, I think it's you who has little respect for the military. We're not brainless dogs who are incapable of making our own observations about our leadership. We do not blindly agree with a government that would throw our lives away and justify it with lies. I fight under orders, but I dissent against tyranny in our leadership, as all Americans should. Anyone can shoot a rifle, and anyone can catch a bullet, but it takes real courage to defend the Constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic, and that includes a dishonest Commander in Chief. - deabyss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9You don't use Impeachment as a lever, you use impeachment when you need to remove someone from office. Impeachment is not some penalty you use when the president doesn't listen to you. Either the president has done something that merits impeachment or he hasn't. It is very simple. If they feel there is merit to impeachment, then do so unconditionally.
- MeauxToo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@troymeyer
You do realize you are wrong. Impeachment is a political, not a legal process. Therefore, the "crime" is any reason on which a majority of the House of Representatives can agree. The Founders intentionally left the notion of "high crimes and misdemeanors" ambiguous -- giving Congress the flexibility to remove a President as needed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_States for more information.
If you insist on a violation of Federal law, we can start his unilateral authorization of wiretaps in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) [http://www.aclu.org/images/nsaspying/asset_upload_file689_26477.pdf]. Just to skip ahead to good parts, the referenced opinion (by a US Federal District Court) finds the President violated many of the criminal statues specified by FISA. If we had a competent Attorney General, a Special Prosecutor would have been immediately appointed. But then, I digress. - pkonink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7tinkertim: That t-shirt might mean something if the members of congress actually showed up to vote for each issue. As it is, they take cost alot of money, but not a lot of space.
- mrswirl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Edit - I meant to say that impeachment has only been used 3 times against the President in our nation's history - Jackson, Nixon, and Clinton.
There have been many, many other impeachments against other officials throughout the years. - geneticlone, on 10/12/2007, -12/+18Most everyone is considering it, don’t you think that some action needs to be taken. I mean when the Republicans and the Democrats both want him gone, something has to be done…
- michaelb1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Impeaching Bush would certainly put the Clinton impeachment in perspective.
They will look quite different sitting next to each other on the bookshelf of history. - AntBing, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10No, go back to the 4th grade and start over. This time listen instead of playing pocket pool.
- Velireon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@venkat: I don't know where you get your news. He did not even have a simple majority the first time (he would have lost in any European nation -- and only won because of a technicality of our system which values some votes more than others), and the second time, he BARELY won. Neither time was anything near a "vast" majority.
- HarryManback, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Wrong. Have a look at the Constitution. Then come back and comment once you are learned.
- Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I think the Democrats are all talk right now. We've been hearing for a while that they're *thinking* about it. I hate to use a phrase that will expose my redneck roots, but they need to ***** or get off the pot. Do it or shut up about it.
- funkspiel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5***** George and the horse he rode in on.
- bewareofmoose, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Oh, I'm sure.
Tell me this: If the government is so violently repressive to opposition - as you seem to imply - then why aren't you dead now? How about the big fish, such as Hilary or even Al Franken?
Face it. You are not living in a dangerous political hotspot. You are never going to be a hero of the resistance. Ours is not a nightmare dystopian future. Our government is NOT going to kill you for being a law-abiding citizen.
You are ridiculous. - mcflynnthm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@98:
Interesting interpretation. I'm saying that the results of the electoral college and the popular vote are not usually different, so most of the time it doesn't matter which one you're going with. HOWEVER, since I'm only talking about most of the time and not ALL of the time, I am not saying that Bush is a good president, or that the political landscape would not be different if Gore were elected. Don't put words in people's mouths, it's rude. My comment was not an indictment of any particular politician, but rather stating facts about the system itself. - seandfeeney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Everyday there is a new article about democrats planning to impeach bush or cheney. Enough of this already!
Call me when they are impeached or the plan fell through. Until then, who cares if they are planing it everyday! - DJShay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4One of my biggest concerns is that the Neocon revisionists will somehow succeed in painting Bush in a positive light in the history books.
- skyscape, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Dude, democrats have been considering to impeach Bush for 7 years now.
You think those democrat phonies are better than Bush? They are all the same - Skye16, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Pretty much. Well, not really the same - just ***** in a different way.
Am I happy the Democrats won control of congress? Absolutely. Am I happy with the work they are doing, or the moron they are thwarting? An emphatic "nay" for the former, and a whole-hearted "yea" on the latter. Honestly, Bush in the White House vs. Democrats in Congress is kind of a lot like when Mr. Burns went to the Mayo clinic and found out he had every single disease imaginable, but that none of them could take control and kill him because they were all stuck in the doorway.
But I suppose things could be worse, right? - mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"If Hillary is elected she has very good odds of impeachment in her second term. Making it 3 in a row."
WTF is that supposed to mean? You can see into the future and tell that if Hillary is elected, she'll also get a second term and then do something impeachable? Seriously, that was the stupidest comment I've ever read. - underthelinux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Mrswirl
Well put - i strongly feel that if more people knew the appropriate meaning of 'impeach', we would see a lot more impeachment. Which is the way it should be - we should have the right to be whistle-blowers. - chalkboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@DevlinD (#6435818)
Um name one thing that he has done that is illegal. - FyreGoddess, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3MrSwirl,
I agree with you for the most part, but it seems to me that this particular situation is pushing a single issue and impeachment *must* be broader than that. This really seems to me to be about pushing a timeline for wiithdrawal from Iraq... is that single act enough to sway the populace from feeling like impeachment is necessary? The problem that I see here is that, if it is, then impeachment isn't really appropriate and if it's not, then why use it as The Issue to make or break it? - AntBing, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8It's not that we are picking the wrong President. It's that the American people have become enamored with instant gratification.
- bebop717, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6If any Democrat wants to be really rocket themselves forward into the spotlight as a up and coming presidential candidate they should do their best to impeach bush. Come on the quicker you do it the more you will be loved.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 247 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is