digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Cheney Impeachment Vote sent to House Floor

pensitoreview.com — House Resolution 333, the impeachment of Dick Cheney for High Crimes and Misdemeanors will be brought to the House floor by Congressman Dennis Kucinich as a privilege vote on Tuesday, Nov. 6th. American Research Group Poll says 54 percent of Americans favor the impeachment of Cheney...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • willyummy69, on 11/09/2007, -11/+394good luck with that. part of me hopes this will work...part of me knows it won't.
    • tehpwnerofn00bs, on 11/06/2007, -7/+18We can only pray.
      • timjim31, on 11/07/2007, -7/+16Do digg users pray?
        • borninda818, on 11/07/2007, -4/+16Only to Steve Jobs.
          • GlassParkingLot, on 11/07/2007, -5/+11Or Ron Paul.
            Yeah, I had to be that jackass who mentioned him.
        • jesuswuzanalien, on 11/06/2007, -6/+2zing!
        • Lyght, on 11/06/2007, -4/+13Not all Digg users are atheists.
          • mrsteveman1, on 11/06/2007, -15/+3I'm going to make a guess that most digg users, if not most people in general, believe in God in some form, but NOT religion.

            So yea.
          • VIrus9, on 11/07/2007, -1/+11We can't expect everyone to be perfect. j/k
            But seriously, I don't harbor any ill will against religious folks, so long as they're not trying to push an agenda which impacts my life based solely on the tenets of their religion.
            With that said, pray for Cheney's impeachment all you want. If it works, you might just convert me. ;)
          • cranium, on 11/07/2007, -4/+3@mrsteveman1
            Any one superstition is just as ***** stupid as the rest.
      • diggimator, on 11/07/2007, -0/+4That Kucinich won't get shot in the face?
      • geddon, on 11/06/2007, -0/+2We can fight. We can take up arms and storm the House. We can demand the President and Vice President step down from their office. We can flush out our corrupted Senators, restore Constitutional Law, and have an election by the people instead of the State. If we can fight, we can win. The whole god damned world is fighting Fascism, why in the hell shouldn't we?
    • Diggnoramus, on 11/07/2007, -4/+48Win or lose, or even if this is just a symbolic gesture, at least someone f***ing did SOMETHING, and that's what's important. If it fails, at least it won't be just idle speculation anymore. The results can be studied, corrections can made, and another approach can be tried. I'm just tired of the whiney "oh, it's useless, so just bend over" attitude. I'm actually leaning toward Ron Paul right now, but THANK YOU Dennis Kucinich.
      • nalen33, on 08/29/2008, -17/+3Cause this is really important. Unlike lowering taxes, expanding healthcare coverage to the poor and disabled, repairing foreign relations...I could go on, but it's pointless, I know. This is what these assholes choose to do with their time, as well as voting themselves raises and benefits increases. Spending more and more of our money. Right.
        • thepotatoman, on 11/06/2007, -0/+7Yeah maybe that should be more important depending on your viewpoints, but when some of congress takes time to condemn things like Media Matters and Rush Limbaugh, and call the Iran Revolutionary Guard terrorists, it seems that they aren't going to do what you are asking for anyway apart from that one children's health care thing. I'll take what I can get for now and maybe this could snowball effect us to a better government. Besides the foreign relations thing should fall on the shoulders of the executive branch, and if they can't do the job then it is congresses job to get them taken out, so in a way this would help this part.
        • GeneralFault, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1Contrary to popular belief, Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time (yes, both the House of Reps and the Senate) . That is the reason for the existence of committees, so that small parts of congress can take on many issues at a time. The whole of congress is involved only when an issue has become important enough or non-partisan enough to pass through committee and onto the floor.
      • GliTCH82, on 11/06/2007, -8/+2Maybe Kucinich knows it won't pass, but did it as a stunt to try to get more voters by showing he's trying to do something about it. If he did it for that reason then I just don't think his heart is in it and he may not have really tried to get the correct approach.
        • phoephus, on 11/06/2007, -1/+6You really should check out Kucinich's history in politics, this guy has risked his life for what he believes is right.

          "After Kucinich refused to sell Muny Light, Cleveland's publicly-owned electric utility, the Cleveland mafia put a hit on Kucinich."

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kucinich
        • NoStoppingUs, on 11/06/2007, -7/+1of course it wont pass. he's simply wasting tax dollars. typical liberal
          • delafere, on 11/10/2007, -1/+6To hear some whining conservative or neocon supporter of the present administration even mention "wasting tax dollars" as a "typical liberal" activity, when the current administration has carried out the most egregious wasteful deficit spending in HISTORY to fund corporate welfare and war for corporate profit... well, that just makes me laugh out loud. It's no wonder you've bankrupted all of us. Your whole ideology is bankrupt.
          • GeneralFault, on 11/10/2007, -0/+3This from a member of the group that "wasted tax dollars" trying to impeach a president for lying about sex. I've had enough of this hypocrisy.
      • andrgo, on 11/06/2007, -0/+2Yeah, at least they did something. So far they've sat on their asses most of the year.
      • geddon, on 11/06/2007, -0/+3I'm a Kucinich man myself (hoping that he picks up Gravel as his vice) but I'd love to have a real election between two candidates that aren't suckling the same corporate teats.
    • rz8472, on 11/06/2007, -2/+23This is the right way to go; impeach everyone who's below George W. Bush right now and then prosecute him when he's out of office.

      But the Republicans are likely to stonewall this, and I doubt even most of the democrats would support despite overwhelming public sentiment.
      • AdamGeld, on 11/07/2007, -4/+11I know one thing, Hillary isn't going to vote for this.
        • borninda818, on 11/06/2007, -4/+5They'll only get like 5 votes...I'm just dying to know how Ron Paul votes. Maybe he'll abstain from voting like he did in the Genocide Resolution thing.
        • cranium, on 11/07/2007, -0/+8You do know Hillary is in the Senate, not the House, right?
          • tyzent, on 11/06/2007, -1/+1at least he's right, i'm not voting for it either
    • bugsy187, on 11/06/2007, -3/+30I'm glad Kucinich has the integrity to bring this vote to the floor. Cheney is a criminal and should be held accountable. I'm curious who'll vote honestly in the house.
      • JAVandiver, on 11/07/2007, -4/+1Everyone keeps on calling George Bush and Dick Cheney criminals, but as of yet I have yet to hear of any actual crimes that they have comitted. Please do us a favor and specifically list list the laws that they have broken.
        • Audacitor, on 11/06/2007, -1/+3http://www.motherearth.org/bushwanted/laws.php
        • darkcooger, on 11/06/2007, -1/+4http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.3 ... - There. Those are the charges against him.
          • JAVandiver, on 11/06/2007, -1/+1The "indictment" only cites statements made in news conferences as well as speculation and conjecture. What specific U.S. law(s) have been violated?
          • darkcooger, on 11/06/2007, -1/+1@JAVandiver:

            Well that would be up to the Senate to determine, wouldn't it? The articles of impeachment accuse Cheney of conspiring to deceive the Congress, subverting the intent of constitutional government, and violating an international treaty to which the United States is a signatory (and thus, bound), among other charges. All three of those fall under the term "high crimes" - the first and second are attempting to circumvent the checks and balances and the third is refusing to abide by a treaty (and the Constitution clearly states that treaties are the law of the land).

            As a man, Dick Cheney violated no law in his actions. However, as an elected member of the United States government, he has broken several laws. The proper recourse, as prescribed by the Constitution, is removal from office. As for what, exactly, he's guilty of, the answer currently is nothing - remember, innocent until proven guilty. He's innocent until the Senate finds him guilty.
          • bugsy187, on 11/07/2007, -0/+2@JAVandiver

            When I called Cheney a criminal, I was referring to principals of international law. People were hanged after WW2 at the Nuremberg tribunal for violating the supreme international crime, namely, waging a war of aggression. Bush and Co. never presented the evidence for substantiating self-defense, when they invaded Iraq. They never even came close. The closest they came was lifting a list of circumstantial evidence from a grad. student's paper. Years later, we've never found evidence of the WMDs cited to justify the invasion. They cry about poor intelligence, but why should we believe anything they say? I mean, the neocons like Cheney and Wolfowitz drafted their "Grand Imperial Strategy" for a series of invasions before entering office. It's well documented. Is any of this speculation or conjecture? It's all easily observable and in the public sphere of information.
    • AdamGeld, on 11/06/2007, -5/+19Impeachment is such a trivial thing to do to such a disgusting bastard. He deserves much worse then the loss of office.
      • thomasprebble, on 11/06/2007, -3/+3He should've been in the gallows along with Saddam. This is not a politician we are talking about, he is a man of evil and I'm no Christian!
      • forgottenhope, on 11/06/2007, -0/+2Agreed. Cheney is part of the axis of evil. Bush is his toy. George HW Bush is a war criminal liar. So look up prescott bush, the grand daddy of them. The ***** was in a bank that was trading with nazi. But to be honest, Prescott Bush and some other bankers in the US helped create hitlers army.

        Since the beggining of time, governments make problems and also come up with the fix. The governments make the problem, the people need a fix. More government, less freedom is the fix.

        Wake up america, we are slaves again on the land our founding fathers died defending.
    • swiftekho, on 11/06/2007, -0/+2Kinda like Ron Paul getting elected :(

      We all hope he will get elected, but with the corruption these days, it will be a most difficult task.

      I'm also interested to see how Ron Paul votes.
      • geddon, on 11/07/2007, -1/+1I've heard it said that if he moves to impeach the President (or VP) that he can kiss his Republican nomination good bye.
  • insensible, on 11/09/2007, -9/+51I think it should work ..... best of luck !!
    • LeeSoong, on 11/07/2007, -4/+49RESOLUTION 333 ?!?

      Damn, they know they'll have to pass it TWICE to try and make it work against the Dark Lord ! (written in the blood of a Virgin with a Pegasus feather under a full moon. )

      Martial Law Emergency Powers Act Activating in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ...
    • AdamGeld, on 11/07/2007, -2/+15333... Does that make him just half the devil? Where's the rest? Ohhhhhhh... BUSH!
    • LordByr0n, on 11/06/2007, -0/+2... Best of luck, anyways.
    • settlesdown, on 11/06/2007, -0/+0yeah. It should work fine. *****. It won't even get 10 votes if it even gets voted on. I hope that you are not reproducing; there are enough mental defectives running around this country already.
  • khpmli, on 11/07/2007, -7/+95so, how many votes is needed for impeachment?
    • moskaudancer, on 11/07/2007, -13/+156I believe it's 2/3 of the total; judging by Congress's actions since January, there's not a chance in hell this is gonna work.

      /fumes at Democratic majority's pussyhood
      • Philodox, on 11/06/2007, -3/+35Sorry to bring math into this, but in order to get a 2/3 majority the dems would need some republicans to also favour impeachment. Now you're right that 100% of the dems won't vote in favour of this but keep in mind this needs support from both parties to go through.
      • mikemil828, on 11/06/2007, -0/+27Even if all the democrats vote for it, it still won't be enough if all republicans vote against it.
      • bzishi, on 11/06/2007, -4/+24Wrong, it is simply a majority vote in the House. Removal from office requires the Senate to vote by 2/3rds. Impeachment just means that he is brought up on charges with the Senate being the jury.

        I hope the Democrats time an impeachment vote on Bush a little better. Impeachment of the President would suspend his ability to pardon. If they impeached Bush about 1 year from now the proceedings would never have enough time to get to a vote in the Senate before he left office. BUT--and this is the important point--he would not be able to pardon all of the criminals who have assisted him on Jan 19th, 2009. All that would be required is that the same Democratic controlled House today thinks clearly and grows some balls and then impeaches Bush quickly after the 2008 Presidential Election. The smart thing to do would be to not bring up all of the potential charges in one vote but stagger them to ensure that the Senate does not have time to vote on them all. They also have to do it suddenly so that Bush won't use his pardon immediately before the vote.
        • Terr01, on 11/06/2007, -2/+4Bzishi: No, moskaudancer has a point. It's equivocation.

          You're confusing "lay charges of impeachment" with "impeach and remove from office". He obviously means the former, you're talking about the latter. Generally anti-Bill-Clinton folks use "impeachment" in your way when they say "he was impeached", but of course Clinton was "acquitted".

          I contend that "impeachment" as "charged with articles of impeachment and removed" is the better definition.

          There needs to be 2/3 vote in the Senate to impeach and remove, so that means approx 30% of Republicans must side with 100% of the Democrats.
          • cranium, on 11/06/2007, -0/+3"I contend that "impeachment" as "charged with articles of impeachment and removed" is the better definition. "
            Impeachment is the analog of indictment, nothing more. These words have technical meanings, you can't make it up as ya go.
      • biotch, on 11/06/2007, -2/+4How is it the pussyhood of Dems when they vote for something but the repubs wont allow the 2/3rds to override the veto Bush always uses, as is most commonly the case.
    • flickboy, on 11/06/2007, -0/+33"The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment." Article I, sec. 2. No special number specified = simple majority.

      "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present." Article I, sec. 3.
      • cowboy86, on 11/06/2007, -8/+1Let's just make sure that only about 5-10 democrats show up diggers. ;)
        • andymadigan, on 11/06/2007, -0/+5I'm sure you know this, but for the others, the Senate would not be able to do something like this without a quorum. According to wikipedia this is a simple majority of the senate (same rule for the house). This creates the odd situation that planned correctly you could remove the president with only 1/3 of the senate voting in favor.
          • Terr01, on 11/06/2007, -0/+3'Course, odds are it'd be a really dirty trick, or a lot of Republicans would tacitly abstain that way...
    • ruley, on 11/06/2007, -6/+10about the same that ARE needed
      • khpmli, on 11/06/2007, -0/+2sorry about that, English is not my first nor second language so I make mistakes & often
    • insinuate, on 11/06/2007, -11/+2Lets hope the votes don't get in a tie! =(
      • OnionBaggage, on 11/06/2007, -1/+2Hey retard... The house of representatives has an odd number of people so there can not be a tie (assuming everyone votes).

        Cheney casts the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, who probably won't see this.
        • darkcooger, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1He wouldn't cast the tie-breaking vote in his own impeachment trial, though, nor would he need to. Removal from office requires a 2/3 vote, not a simple majority, so a tie would mean acquittal.
    • insinuate, on 11/07/2007, -19/+2Lets hope the votes don't get in a tie! =(
    • insinuate, on 11/07/2007, -20/+1Lets hope the votes don't get in a tie! =(
    • Firehed, on 11/06/2007, -4/+6Doesn't matter - even if he's impeached, the process of removal from office would take longer than the rest of the legal term. If you want something done that will actually get results... well, be creative, as I'd rather not encounter a run-in with homeland security for stating the obvious.
      • Terr01, on 11/06/2007, -1/+13The political symbolism and legal effect is important. It would be a disservice to our our nation and our descendants to leave the Bush administration as a precedent for what a constitution-ripping President can get away with.
        • AdamGeld, on 11/06/2007, -0/+3It's very dark times for symbolism. Just think, even now, with how terrible things are, we can't even get symbolism!
      • AdamGeld, on 11/06/2007, -2/+2If there are any goons in Homeland Security who would do anything about that, I'd certainly like to meet them!
    • BobOki, on 11/06/2007, -1/+5Guys, its about damn time you got pissed at EVERYONE in congress.... not just a specific party. I don't give a damn WHAT historically a party is supposed act like, they all are supposed to do whats best for America. And right now, Bush/Cheney is NOT it. The party be damned, you had best be full out outraged if congress does not pass this with 100% vote, to do less would in my eyes, would be unconstitutional, unAmerican, and even an act of a traitor.
  • Waiting2awake, on 11/08/2007, -7/+54Best of luck... but I fear this is like asking the fox what happened in the henhouse last night....

    • perhapsimcrazy, on 11/06/2007, -1/+2What, did Coulter get out again?
  • Hoxie, on 11/08/2007, -6/+124Execute order 66...erm... 333.
    • Coded1, on 11/06/2007, -13/+1funny eh.
      • AdamGeld, on 11/06/2007, -4/+4No, actually it's horrible. I find nothing about this administration's wanton murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians funny. Bush Jr. and Sr. are modern day Hitlers. Bush Jr. is waging his "crusade" on the Muslim world, killing all who stand in his way of world domination. I do not find that funny in the slightest bit.
    • thelastknowngod, on 11/07/2007, -0/+3my first thought was "333... hes meeting the devil halfway..."
      • billbacon, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1Cheney is only half of the beast.
        • cranium, on 11/07/2007, -2/+2Not to mix metaphors, but the Sith come in pairs. Obviously, Hillary is the other one.
    • LeeSoong, on 11/07/2007, -1/+1Sith Ghouliannie - ''Execute Order 9/11''
  • NeoRicen, on 11/08/2007, -15/+19Pfft, I'm for this but you're an idiot if you actually think it will pass.
    • LBobRife, on 11/06/2007, -2/+17Still, it's a worthwhile symbolic gesture.
    • LeeSoong, on 11/06/2007, -10/+3Dick Cheney is a brilliant man.
      He has a vision of the United States of America as Master of the Earth.

      Naturally, there will be many who oppose the interests of the USA, and sometimes Push will come to Shove, but the deeds are done. The plans are set into motion and there is nothing that can undo his achievements.

      Impeachment ? Who cares - it's just a vacation plan at this point.

      He still has Halliburton, his money, and connections to people without names.

      An impeachment would just free up his time to consult with Exxon-Mobile,
      now that the #1 oil company is in China, they will have to work harder to take back the lead.
    • MrCobaltBlue, on 11/06/2007, -1/+16At least someone in the democratic party has a pair, even if it is Dennis Kucinich...
      • kingkilr, on 11/06/2007, -1/+11Based on his wife he has a pair and massive dong.
    • ngnboone, on 11/06/2007, -2/+1No it won't pass, but we may be surprised by how many votes it actually gets
    • cranium, on 11/06/2007, -1/+1It won't pass, but we'll have every member of the House on record on this issue for the upcoming election, we'll know exactly who to target for defeat.
      • delafere, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1So, you're going to target any Democrats that vote against impeachment for defeat... by voting in Republicans instead? You might want to think about that.
  • Brianguy2000, on 11/06/2007, -4/+41Not sure how it works but if he's convicted of crimes then can't Bush pardon him?
    • moskaudancer, on 11/06/2007, -4/+27He doesn't even have to be convicted; he can be preemptively pardoned for whatever he'd be accused/indicted of. That's what happened with Nixon.
      • nlevy, on 11/06/2007, -0/+16I don't think an impeachment can be nullified like an indictment.
        • moskaudancer, on 11/06/2007, -0/+9No, I mean of criminal charges. You're right, impeachment can't be nullified. That would be an enormous flaw in the checks-and-balances system that the founders simply would not have allowed.
          Keep in mind a president or VP must be successfully impeached *before* they can be indicted on criminal charges.
          • cranium, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1Actually, they have to be removed from office first too.
      • flickboy, on 11/06/2007, -0/+11That's not what happened. Nixon was about to be impeached -- he never actually let it get that far, because he resigned. See my comment below for why he did that.
    • flickboy, on 11/07/2007, -1/+39Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
    • seanc6610, on 11/06/2007, -7/+8Well when you're impeached, it's not a conviction, it's only the start of the process. Even if Cheney's impeached, it doesn't mean that he'll be forced out of office, because he could pull a Bill Clinton, lie his ass off, and get off.
      Impeachment = Indictment.
      • keebler, on 11/06/2007, -2/+12Impeachment is the process itself. And Clinton didn't lie his ass off once he was impeached, he lied and that's why he was impeached.
      • aussieNickuss, on 11/06/2007, -8/+16"When Clinton lied....no one died."
        • lithera, on 11/06/2007, -1/+6Why is this guy being dugg down?
          He's telling the truth, it hurts doesnt it? Sex vs mass-murder and torture, yeah the priorities are clear here.

          A president that hurt no-one except his wife's feelings at most gets removed from office and yet you let a couple of half-brained monkeys rampage over the world for 7 years without so much as a question.
          Bush and Cheney's lies have ruined the lives of millions so far, all for your ***** precious oil...... sleep well America.
        • duffblue, on 11/07/2007, -1/+1*cough* USS Cole
        • LeeSoong, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1It would have been a better Drama story if Monica had Clinton's Love Child,
          so much more interesting than a Blue Dress in need of a trip to the dry cleaners...
      • Terr01, on 11/06/2007, -5/+1IMO it's a legitimately ambiguous term, but I also prefer "impeachement" to mean "the end", rather than "the process". I mean, that's what everyone cares about, right? We should say "Clinton was charged with articles of impeachment".
        • Neiby, on 11/06/2007, -2/+5So, you just want to redefine the word to suit you? Do we all just get to decide on our own definitions of words now?

          How cromulent.
          • Terr01, on 11/06/2007, -3/+2"Redefine"? Oh please, you didn't even open a dictionary before responding, moron. Allow me to elucidate:
            Merriam-Webster: http://m-w.com/dictionary/impeachment

            Main Entry: im·peach
            Function: transitive verb
            1 a: to bring an accusation against
            1 b: to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office
            1 c: to remove from office especially for misconduct

            Now, you see those three ways of using the word? See how the same word can mean both definitions I gave?

            Next time, if you're going to play at being a vocabulary pedant (or colloquially, "nazi"), then you had best make damn well sure you're actually right.
          • mrurc, on 11/07/2007, -1/+2They are ordered according to the most common usage. You pick the third most common usage over both the most popular and the second most popular.

            1C may be the definition in other countries, but the Constitution defines impeachment and that is not the definition that it uses. Don't you think that the Constitution, the law on which we rely for impeachment information, trumps the third most popular definition in a dictionary?

            You should also make sure that you pick a source that applies to the discussion, which you didn't. It doesn't matter how reliable your dictionary is if that is not the appropriate source. So speaketh the vocabulary pedant.
          • forgottenhope, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1Same team jesus.
    • biotch, on 11/06/2007, -0/+6Yeah because Cheney is in a new 4th branch of government
  • commernie, on 11/07/2007, -1/+106I'm impressed with Kucinich for doing this. Sadly, it's not going to pass. How can we expect politicians to do what the people want if we never hold them accountable for anything? Both parties have been doing what they want for so long now, and people are still going out there to vote for them. Sad, sad, sad...
    • LeeSoong, on 11/06/2007, -1/+11Know I know why Kucinich has been wearing garlic and showering in holy water, as protection against those who have been summoned to stop Order 333.
    • mrurc, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1t's a good move politically too, because many candidates for the Presidency will have to vote on this and if they do not vote according to the will of their own constituents, they don't make trust-inspiring Presidential candidates either.

      After all, the President and Vice President in question aren't listening to the American people. This equates them all.
    • Bamont, on 11/08/2007, -2/+1The amount of people dissatisfied with the Bush administration is certainly well documented. 3/4 of this country despises the man's administration. However, many polls that I've seen point to less than a 1/4 of people wanting Bush to be impeached, or believe he's done enough to be impeached. So it's a little difficult for you to make the claim "do what the people want" - because you're being selective in how you worded your statement. A minority of people want it, not a majority. It's hard to make the claim about "doing what the people want" if a majority of them don't believe he should be impeached.

      On top of which, Kucinich knows the easiest way to pull love from the internet is to introduce stuff like this at our current phase in the political system. He's smart, most of you fall for it and call him a hero anyways. Even though he really isn't.
      • delafere, on 11/06/2007, -1/+1This article and thread are about impeaching CHENEY, and at least one poll shows that as many as HALF of Americans favor impeaching him. That CAN be interpreted as "do what the people want."

        Read for comprehension, Bushie.
        • Bamont, on 11/08/2007, -1/+1Half isn't 51%, which is therefore not a majority, which is therefore not a "do what the people want" reality. Show me the poll, by the way.
  • MercedRocks, on 11/06/2007, -37/+12Yawn. So much for Congress doing something tangible this year like BALANCING the BUIDGET, ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, or EXPANDING CHILDREN's HEALTHCARE.
    • Coven, on 11/06/2007, -6/+16Because they haven't had things like a war and a stubborn republican minority to deal with in the meantime.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 11/07/2007, -3/+14Because ***** if Congress tried to exercise their STATED powers, right?
    • AdamGeld, on 11/06/2007, -1/+1All things in due time. You can't have everything all at once.
    • drakethegreat, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1You have to remove the cancer with chemotherapy before you can nurse the person back to health. I see a connection.
    • BrewBeau, on 11/06/2007, -0/+7It was Bush who vetoed an expanded children's healthcare bill.
    • mrurc, on 11/06/2007, -0/+2Thanks for basically quoting our President, no matter how biased his opinion on the matter is. He actually stated that attempting to follow the will of the people that he represents is a "waste of time."

      He is trying to garner support for Republican presidential candidates and distract from the legitimacy of the bills that were passed. I am sure that he appreciates you falling for his unmitigated gall and it's attempt to distract you from the real issues.

      Not only did Bush veto the children's healthcare bill, he insulted Congress for passing it. He also vetoed budget-balancing measures and used the budget as an excuse to veto other measures that he dislikes, you know, like funding levee repairs. We've never needed that anyway, right?
      • AbsurdParadox, on 11/06/2007, -4/+2You know, amazing as it sounds, I agree that following the "will of the people" is a waste of time. There's no such thing as the "will of the people". Its collectivist garbage.
  • SeethisPass, on 11/09/2007, -13/+104While you are donating to the Ron Paul campaign today and early Tuesday you would be doing an honor for your country to also chip in a donation for the only other candidate with guts and integrity, Dennis Kucinich.
    • AdamGeld, on 11/06/2007, -8/+2There's nothing wrong with donating to multiple canidates, but one should really focus their time and money on what they consider to be the best canidate. If you have lots of money to toss around, though, then it's your money.
      • mrurc, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1Why shouldn't he support candidates from each party before the primaries? If he gets his way in both cases, he will have to pick then, not now.

        I have an idea, why don't you make up for it by not donating to anyone. That'll make it fair, right?
    • jotate, on 11/07/2007, -2/+3Dennis Kucinich, though idealistic and driven, wouldn't make a good president. His debate performances are genuinely laughable.
      • zegneverx, on 11/07/2007, -0/+6And Bush's debate performances were immaculate, hence the reason why he is currently the president, right?
      • jotate, on 11/07/2007, -1/+1Are you suggesting that, despite Bush's sub-par debate performances, he has made a great president and, therefore, so will Kucinich? Because I think there might be a flaw in your logic.
  • AnotherBrian, on 11/09/2007, -2/+74About ***** time.
    • FredSpeaking, on 11/06/2007, -0/+3Gentlemen, call your congressmen. Tell them to back up Kucinich with filibusters of their own.
  • horatiolust, on 11/06/2007, -15/+5Bottom line - 67 votes to remove from office
    MEntal masturbation at its finest
    • Fanrir, on 11/06/2007, -0/+3You know how the Impeachment process works? Even if it passes in The House of Representatives the Senate will then take on the process from there.
      Read up on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment
    • str1fe, on 11/06/2007, -0/+2Bottom line, it's just 2/3 of the Senators present when the impeached President, VP, whoever is tried by the Senate - yes, it proceeds similarly to a regular trial. But that's only if it gets passed the House, which it likely won't
    • mrurc, on 11/06/2007, -0/+2I see. Voting on a measure that the people actually care about is redundant, even though it will show the people the real opinions of the presidential candidates who have dodged this issue. Voting for the lesser evil is redundant for the same reason, and since no candidate is perfect, I guess that means that you won't be voting in the presidential election. Thanks!
  • batshitcrazy, on 11/09/2007, -6/+34the closer cheney comes to being impeached, the closer we get to the false flag attack that will bring down martial law on us
    • AdamGeld, on 11/06/2007, -0/+5The day this has a chance of getting a 2/3 majority, is the day martial law is declared and the administration's trained assassins come out to play.
    • mrurc, on 11/06/2007, -0/+2I am opposed to having a gun in my home but I might have to buy one.
      • NewGTGuy, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1Same, but I just bought two. Shotgun and 9mm... Thinking about an additional 50 BMG.. :)
    • Bamont, on 11/06/2007, -4/+1The simple fact that you can get dugg up by making some radical claim such as that, is indicative of the stupidity rampant here on digg. No evidence to back it up, just wild, jumping assumptions and stupidity. And you wonder why many people laugh hysterically at the radicalism on Digg.
      • NewGTGuy, on 11/07/2007, -1/+1That's why 42% of the people in America think we were not told the truth about 911. We are all paranoid.

        BTW, did you know building 7 fell?
        • Bamont, on 11/08/2007, -1/+142% of people don't say that they believe the government is responsible for it. Therein is the difference (and many more people don't believe the 9/11 Commission report was completed, either. Not a truther, just saying). Also, perhaps you, and others, should do some research about the scientific and psychological evidence that shows why human beings believe in conspiracies. It's a much more close-minded attitude than you would think.
  • DeFex, on 11/09/2007, -4/+92Dont be surprised if Kucinich has an unfortunate accident next week.
    • boiboi, on 11/08/2007, -1/+24Then I will marry his 28 year old wife.
    • Fooby, on 11/07/2007, -0/+4"Democratic hopeful found dead in home, allegedly shot by rifleman"
    • Thuktun, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1No, they'll make it look like suicide.
  • wstrucke, on 11/06/2007, -3/+4http://www.duggmirror.com
  • bonds, on 11/06/2007, -1/+19I hope this passes, kinda excited to see what it looks like in the news tomorrow.
  • Hollic, on 11/06/2007, -1/+19You know, even if this doesn't pass, I'm at least hoping for a censure. I mean come on, there'd be SOME consolation in that. It's like a letter, telling them how ashamed we are of them, even though it does nothing. Public opinion really can't get much worse so at least it's another page in the history book against them.
  • dildoolielly, on 11/06/2007, -23/+10What is this, the 8th time now?

    Democraps are no better than Bush.
    • clearwaterlab, on 11/06/2007, -2/+9No.
    • MrThirsty, on 11/06/2007, -3/+5that really was a horrible comment, dildoolielly
    • dildoolielly, on 11/06/2007, -8/+3You're right, I stand corrected. Noone is as bad as Bush
      • drakethegreat, on 11/06/2007, -2/+3actually you're wrong again, I think you would probably be worse.
    • patrickloggins, on 11/06/2007, -3/+1Wow. I actually used the term "democraps" in fifth grade. Literally.
    • NewGTGuy, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1He is correct.

      Democrat = Republican

      Did you see that none of the Democratic candidates would commit to removing troops from Iraq by 2012? Not one. Same agenda anyone?
  • MrBogard, on 11/09/2007, -1/+32I agree that the chances of this going anywhere are very slim, but I think that it's also something that must be done simply for the sake of democracy and for the sake of integrity. Kudos to Kucinich for being one of the few Democrats with the balls to take action. I've seen people indicate that he's only doing this because, "he has nothing to lose," but the truth is -- we're all losing right now.

    I'm not sure I understand why this is limited to Cheney, but it's a start.
    • AdamGeld, on 11/09/2007, -0/+8If Bush were to be removed from office first, I guarantee you just one day of Cheney would make all these years of Bush Jr. look like kindergarten recess.
    • mrurc, on 11/06/2007, -0/+3It would probably make Pelosi the VP and she would hopefully release the currently secret information that Cheney has access to and that Congress has the rights to. Besides, he is low hanging fruit after declaring himself not part of the administrative branch. That is a provable lie and his own behavior disproves it. I believe that he stated it in a legal document or proceeding, which would make it perjury, and as we all know, a President can be impeached for perjury.

      It's really so we can see how the candidates would vote.
      • LoveableNerd, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1Unfortunately that isn't how it works. If you look back to Watergate in the early 70's, Nixon's veep Spiro Agnew was forced to resign in disgrace. Nixon just appointed another veep, good ole Gerald Ford, who returned the favor by pardoning him after he resigned from office in disgrace. Thus the only time in US history when we had an unelected president. Who would Bush appoint? Condoliza Rice? Alberto Gonzales? John Ashcroft? Don Rumsfeld? He would surely appoint someone on that level just to throw it back in our faces.
    • darkcooger, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1I think if I was in Kucinich's shoes, I'd be looking into a plan with the bill's co-sponsors to continually introduce these privileged resolutions on the House floor. It would effectively grind the House to a halt until it seriously dealt with the issue. On the one hand, it would be bad for the Congress to be dead in the water, but on the other hand, a purely symbolic vote is not going to help us. We've had way too many of these symbolic things already - like all the non-binding resolutions on Iraq. Let's have some binding resolutions.
  • LopsidedZebra, on 11/07/2007, -1/+56Is it really only 54 percent? Wow...thats ***** sad...
    • moin1097, on 11/06/2007, -2/+2You'd think they would have had a higher number from the people they chose to ask the question to.
    • Diggnoramus, on 11/06/2007, -1/+7I'm sure that in *reality*, most people feel the way you do, LopsidedZebra. 75% of people say the vast majority of political polls are garbage.
      • mrurc, on 11/06/2007, -3/+2142% of statistics are made up on the spot.
    • AdamGeld, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1054% are in favor, an additional 43% are also likely in favor but too scared to voice their opinion. There's always that 3% that vote the other way.
  • LimeParrot, on 11/09/2007, -6/+18Next in line: Bush.
    • spyd3rweb, on 11/06/2007, -1/+2To bad all the other ***** resigned already.
      • AdamGeld, on 11/06/2007, -0/+2You sure? There's an awful lot of them to go around.
  • Lenny, on 11/08/2007, -0/+31Site's slow. Here's all it says:

    House Resolution 333, the impeachment of Dick Cheney for High Crimes and Misdemeanors will be brought to the House floor by Congressman Dennis Kucinich as a privilege vote on Tuesday, Nov. 6th. American Research Group Poll says 54 percent of Americans favor the impeachment of Cheney and the National Lawyer’s Guild passed a Resolution for Impeachment on Friday, Nov. 2nd, giving further support for the impeachment proceedings.
  • chicoer2001, on 11/09/2007, -6/+20How will Ron Paul vote?
    • ruley, on 11/09/2007, -5/+65 bucks on no vote. he's no dummy.
    • mrurc, on 11/09/2007, -0/+4I would hope that he would vote according to the issue for which the impeachment proceeding is requested.
    • USNavyBlue, on 11/09/2007, -0/+3Ron Paul has strong knowledge of the Constitution and has a strong stance on the illegal war that was never granted by Congress as per the Constitution. In addition, Ron Paul is against the anything that encroaches on civil liberties of the people, for example the US Patriot Act, the removal of Habeous Corpus, Now the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. It should be called "Protection of Hacks from Justly Angry Constituents Act of 2007.

      So YES, I think very strongly that he would vote for impeachment and just lets not stop there, get Bush and all the traitors too. CLEAN HOUSE.
  • gthrank, on 11/08/2007, -13/+4Watch the wimp spineless congressional democrats prove once again they are invertebrates. Most of them won't vote for it. Bastards.
    Darn right we're at war. WITH THE REPUBLICANS.
    • Hollic, on 11/08/2007, -5/+11Not really. Even Republicans are ashamed of him. We're at war with money whores and power mongers.
    • AdamGeld, on 11/06/2007, -2/+2I am so god damn sick and tired of people splitting everything into two sides. This is far more complicated than Democrats and Republicans. Hell, there's more parties than that anyway! Most people in politics purposely mislead the public about what political party they truely believe in, so you can't break this down into such simple terms.
  • dicerandom, on 11/09/2007, -7/+28When do we get to impeach and/or put on trial Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Gonzales, and the rest of the crew?
    • LBobRife, on 11/06/2007, -2/+12I would not lump Powell into that group. I know you can make a great argument for putting him in there, i just think he doesn't deserve it because he was used and left out of the loop.
      • AdamGeld, on 11/06/2007, -1/+2Powell knowingly presented "evidence" that he knew was a fabrication. He is a pathetic excuse for a human being, and I despise him.
      • mrurc, on 11/09/2007, -0/+3And according to his tradition of his military service, he presented the information based on the word of his commanding officer, the President.

        He supposedly was in denial about it being factual, only realizing later that he was used. I think that Bush's treatment of Powell should have gotten him impeached myself, and I thought it before Powell stopped listing the obviously false evidence.
    • spyd3rweb, on 11/09/2007, -2/+10Impeach every one of those assholes that voted for the military commissions act, the patriot act, the patriot act 2, and this new Homegrown terrorism and Radicalization act.
  • boiboi, on 11/09/2007, -8/+19"Is it really only 54 percent? Wow...thats ***** sad..." Which means the country is ready for Hilary's Chinagate II and the reopening of the bed and breakfast hotel, "The White House."
    • LBobRife, on 11/09/2007, -7/+7I couldn't care less if there were extramarital affairs going on with their relationship or them taking money from Chinese. I care about saving american lives and helping our economy. I'll probably get flamed for this but Bill did a great job at not getting our boys killed and boosting the economy, and if/when Hillary gets elected I hope she will follow suit.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 11/09/2007, -2/+7Wow, your use of the "olde tyme" Republican smears is so quaint. We've got torture, a fascist takeover, destruction of the constitution, treason, war profiteering, a coverup of Global Warming which threatens everyone,... we could go on.

      And we are supposed to believe all that crap about Hillary because -- who said so? The same assholes who lied us into their contractor war? The same assholes who want to have Blackwater clean up after storms? The same ***** traitors who've lied to us for 10 years now?

      The only thing Hillary has going for her, is she isn't officially a Republican -- which stands for fat cat traitor.
  • AshamedAmerican, on 11/09/2007, -9/+24The only appropriate "impeachment" Cheney deserves is the kind with a large man in a black hood.

    Hey maybe Barry Bonds' steroid-induced swing can actually be used for a noble cause....
    • dcbebop, on 11/09/2007, -1/+8Wow, you're all over the place with that one ...
      • AshamedAmerican, on 11/06/2007, -0/+2eh, i guess the medieval executioner reference was a bit stretched.
        • Observant1, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1it isnt my opinion fer sher.. this nation could do with some good old fashioned "rope and tree psychology". the news media lately has been trying to demonize it as something racist, but rope and tree was good tools for corrupt politicians and criminals! they know this and are afraid, so naturally they are trying to pitch it as something racist now.. schmucks!!
          rope and tree psychology works great with kids, dogs, horses... if theyre being good you make a rope swing for em to play on outside, or a tug toy.. if theyre being bad you tie em up a while to think about why theyre there, and if they grow up to do evil things ya hang em up a few days to remind others there really ARE consequences. the real issues are simply fear and respect. you very rarely get the latter, without some element of the former. being that near all reprimand and punishment has been taken away from parents, its no question why there is so much corruption
    • toxicshok, on 11/06/2007, -3/+2Don't be ashamed to be American
  • swgc5, on 11/09/2007, -3/+11I doubt this will go through, but I sure hope it does.
  • jhails, on 11/09/2007, -3/+71I'm guessing Dick is busy issuing Kucinich an invitation to go hunting.
    • AdamGeld, on 11/06/2007, -1/+1Ewww, that would get messy in a hurry.
      • EvilMoose, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1Nah, Scooter Libby got shot and he's fine now! j/k
  • thebellmaster1x, on 11/09/2007, -9/+70You see? THIS is why I'm voting for Kucinich. It's called BALLS, people.
    • Hollic, on 11/06/2007, -4/+6You're going to do a write-in? (had to do it ;))
    • moin1097, on 11/09/2007, -16/+6More like a lack of brains.
      If the democrats vote for this then they could be viewed as trying to get revenge for clinton by moderate Americans. If they vote against this then they will be viewed as being even more spineless. Neither one of these outcomes bode well for the democrats during a run up to election time.

      It's a no win for the democrats.
      • thebellmaster1x, on 11/09/2007, -3/+11There's no reason to get "revenge"; Clinton wasn't convicted. Cheney very well should be, you know, what with the war crimes and all.
        • moin1097, on 11/09/2007, -9/+1Impeachment carries it's own stigma. Even if a conviction isn't made.
          And the war crimes thing rests with the 5% that make up the ultraleft. The 5% that make up the ultraright wont have their minds changed.
          The 90% that make up the moderate Americans will most likely view this as a petty chance for revenge for one of the two Presidents that have been impeached.
          And it ain't Andrew Johnson.
        • mightyzug, on 11/06/2007, -1/+3spoken like someone who is indeed not part of the 90% moderate americans .... who all want bush/cheny gone btw.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 11/06/2007, -2/+5Bill Maher was asking for one Democrat with balls -- this is the one.
      • AdamGeld, on 11/06/2007, -0/+4Actually he asked one of them to grow "just one ball".
    • ivandir, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2Something that Nancy Pelosi doesn't seem to have.
  • Mageant, on 11/09/2007, -2/+17>I'm not sure I understand why this is limited to Cheney, but it's a start.
    If you impeach Bush then Cheney becomes President. Besides, Cheney is even more unpopular than Bush. So a congressman would be risking less if he voted against Cheney.
    • flickboy, on 11/06/2007, -3/+4Impeach both Bush AND Cheney at the same time. Nancy Pelosi would become President under 3 USC 19(a).
      • moin1097, on 11/06/2007, -7/+3The democrats would arrange a little "accident" before she could take office.
        Just like all the "accidents" they arranged for the clintons.
      • kageki, on 11/06/2007, -0/+7Not sure if that is a desirable outcome either. Clearly Kucinich did his homework and picked Cheney specifically for now.
      • AdamGeld, on 11/06/2007, -1/+5That would suck too. Pelosi isn't exactly on my favorites list.
      • Observant1, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1put the hand picked traitor enabler in there instead? no thanks.
  • savagesteve13, on 11/09/2007, -3/+16That pretty much explains it all. Cheney is actually president! Bush is of no consequence to anyone since he's just a bumbling fool controlled by others.
    • crodragn, on 11/09/2007, -3/+4And that's different from any other politician... how?
    • techmaster, on 11/09/2007, -2/+8Exactly... If Bush can be considered a milder version of Hitler, then Cheney can be considered a milder form of Himmler. Sure, Bush is an idiot with screwed up priorities, but Cheney is the face of true evil. It's also similar to Darth Vader and the Emperor. Darth Vader wasn't really that evil...you take away his suit and mask and he was just a frail, whiney man. But the Emperor...that was one truly evil dude, who basically used Darth Vader as his puppet.
      • AdamGeld, on 11/09/2007, -0/+3I don't think Bush and Cheney are milder than Hitler one bit. They just go about it with a different approach, but it's by no means less "successful". People's opinions are dangerously mailable. All you need to do is repeat yourself over and over again, and eventually they will agree with you.
    • AdamGeld, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2It's not very hard to manipulate someone with an IQ less than a sack of potatoes.
    • mrurc, on 11/09/2007, -0/+3But he is far more than a bumbling fool being controlled by others! He is a megalomaniacal bigoted bumbling fool with delusions of grandeur who is controlled by others.
  • Monarch818, on 11/09/2007, -1/+52Can't impeach Bush first! That would make Cheney President. Kucinich is a genius, if Cheney is ousted, everyone will happily jump at the chance to impeach Dubya!
  • Damian91, on 11/09/2007, -2/+28Cheney has already done his dirty work/made his dirty money. Should've been done years ago.
  • nayr, on 11/06/2007, -3/+4Anyone got a more reliable source for this? Google turns up NADA.
  • pukeflavor, on 11/09/2007, -8/+10Coming headline:
    KUCINICH HEROIN MURDER SUICIDE
    6 Year Old Victim Raped, Beheaded, Raped Again
    • clearwaterlab, on 11/06/2007, -2/+1lol?
    • Tetraca, on 11/09/2007, -1/+11No. They're much smarter than that. They'd go into his house, inject him with truth serum until he's a zombie, place him into his car, turn it on with the garage door closed, and wait until he passes out and dies from the fumes. It would be a clean murder.
      • moin1097, on 11/06/2007, -3/+1Did you find your parents will?
        • AdamGeld, on 11/06/2007, -0/+6No, he watched the History Channel. Check it out sometime.
  • FreewareCityC0M, on 11/09/2007, -54/+4is Dennis Kucinich a communist? is he trying to destroy the country? Why do liberals want to hurt desctroy America
    • twister17e, on 11/09/2007, -3/+16That's the Bush's crew speaking in case you didn't get that memo...
    • drakethegreat, on 11/09/2007, -0/+7why do idiots spout off catch phrases? Oh the great mysteries in life.
    • AdamGeld, on 11/09/2007, -0/+8Uh, what? I'm sorry, but I can't understand you.
  • LeeSoong, on 11/09/2007, -8/+37Senator Kucinich, We find your lack of faith, disturbing.
    • clearwaterlab, on 11/09/2007, -1/+5Teehee! I get it!
      • mrurc, on 11/07/2007, -1/+1So do I but it doesn't make me giggle like a school girl.
    • spyd3rweb, on 11/06/2007, -0/+6Apology accepted senator Kucinich.
      • spyd3rweb, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1noted that he is not a senator, but OP used senator.
    • pailsOfGrease, on 11/07/2007, -0/+3Congressman Kucinich.
  • link5280, on 11/06/2007, -14/+7Not going to happen, them dummiecrats are wimps! They promise everything then deliver nothing!
  • xatrak, on 11/06/2007, -3/+6Good story. The source is ***** though.
  • rnwen2750, on 11/09/2007, -2/+11It's about ***** time.
  • mugsoh, on 11/06/2007, -2/+5Here is the text of the bill. Doesn't say if it's going to be voted on tomorrow or not.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./tem ...
  • kitejumping, on 11/06/2007, -2/+3http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/cheney
    more reliable source...
  • atomicrobot, on 11/07/2007, -7/+29The problem with our democracy is that the average American is a total idiot.
    • joot2112, on 11/07/2007, -1/+8Majority fools.
      • AdamGeld, on 11/06/2007, -1/+4Unfortunately, you're absolutely correct.
    • Chupathingy, on 11/07/2007, -0/+8Yeah! Well, that and that it's a republic.
    • AbsurdParadox, on 11/07/2007, -4/+4Aside from the fact that its a democratic republic... democracy doesn't work. Its two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
      • commernie, on 11/08/2007, -1/+6I've heard that analogy before, and it always amazes me how incredibly INACCURATE it is. Minorities would still have rights in a democracy. Anyway, please explain to me why having a bunch of rich bastards decide everything is better.
        • AbsurdParadox, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1Do you think having "rich bastards decide everything" is really the only other option?
      • USNavyBlue, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1First ~ We the People ~ is a Constitutional Republic ~ get the word democracy out of it. A democracy will always without fail commit suicide and this is what is happening to the USA NOW because the USA is no longer and has not been operating as a Constitutional Republic but rather a democracy we the people of on the verge of a police state! HELLO
    • cubeeggs, on 11/06/2007, -0/+3It's more of an Idiocracy.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 11/06/2007, -1/+1You really should not talk that way about Democrat wingnuts
  • l00s3r, on 11/06/2007, -2/+3It's too bad but I don't think congress will follow through. The war in Iraq was a slam dunk and that one rebounded into the other court.
  • tdkme, on 11/06/2007, -4/+8I heard Cheney is going hunting. Guess Kucinich is going to be his guest...
    • kilofox, on 11/06/2007, -0/+0Could be worse.... Kucinich taking a car ride with Teddy.
  • crazywarthog, on 11/06/2007, -12/+7Impeach Cheney but don't cut off the funds for Iraq as promised ? Hmmmmmmm ... could this be a tactic to keep you off off the Iraq war funding issue ?

    Yes, you schmucks are that stupid !!!
    • friedman420, on 11/06/2007, -2/+2cutting off funding would just endanger US troops. This is more important.
      • nalen33, on 08/29/2008, -2/+4The fact that they, and in turn you, think this is more important is why Congress has a 24% approval rating. Cut the ***** and balance the budget, lower taxes, and cut out the pork for God's sake.
        • delafere, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1You mean that budget that hasn't been balanced since Clinton?
      • iamr00t, on 11/06/2007, -0/+3Yeah, because all the funding they're getting now is keeping the SOOO safe.
  • ralph12c41, on 11/06/2007, -38/+10Phone home Dennis Kucinich...you are the laughing stock of the country
    • siszam, on 11/06/2007, -3/+6No you warmonger Bush supporters are.
  • mikeywow2k, on 11/06/2007, -1/+3The only way this can happen is if we ALL write to or call our congressmen/ woman, Senators and elected officials and put the pressure on them. Here's a great way to start- http://capwiz.com/jbs/home/
  • snotrokit, on 11/06/2007, -1/+5well, even though it has a snowballs chance in hell at going through, maybe, just maybe this will trigger some sort of synaptic energy in the useless turdball that is congress that hey, maybe these ***** neocons are up to some bad things. Maybe I should stop being a stooge and think a bit before I rubberstamp the next King George order. Maybe, just maybe.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 120 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.