digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Nader criticizes 'spineless, gutless' Democrats for not impeaching Bush

rawstory.com — "The impeachable offenses of Bush outnumber any other list of impeachable offenses of any US president," Nader said. "Not only did he and Cheney violate their oath of office to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land, but they proceeded to impose a practice of torture, to arrest thousands of Americans without charges...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • art42, on 10/10/2007, -23/+66Impeachable offenses of Bu$h Co has outnumbered the list of ALL impeachable offenses by every president to serve in the US. IMPEACH or face the consequences on election day or a recall.
    • dshPls, on 10/10/2007, -8/+12Go ahead and file a lawsuit.
    • kickinass, on 10/10/2007, -15/+36Dugg down for using the $ sign in Bush.
      • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Agreed.

        I mean, I can respect the position, I also think Bush should be impeached for various constitutional offenses... but I find it uncomfortable to publicly agree with someone who is writing like a moron or prepubescent teenager.
        • bugsy187, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1He's drawing a connection between Bush and corporate money by writing the name as "Bu$h Co". I don't see it as moronic or immature.
        • bromanct, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Thanks for clearing that up, bugsy.
    • alexanEmpire, on 10/10/2007, -13/+9" offenses of Bu$h"

      And while you are filing that lawsuit, art42, why don't you take down M$ afterwards?
    • trenchcoat, on 10/10/2007, -7/+7Don't forget $ony.
    • hawkeye17, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Ralph is right but if it wasn't for that ego maniac, none of this would have happened in the first place. That asshat cost Gore the election and played a big part in changing history for the worse. So I say...crawl back under your rock and stay there Ralph.
      • soomprimal, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Stop repeating the same tired lie over and over again. Katherine Harris systematically and illegally removed Democratically-leaning voters (who were mostly Black and Latino) from the voter roles under the guise that they were "felons", when 99% of them in fact had no criminal record whatsoever. Had these registered voters been able to cast their vote and weren't turned away, Gore would have decisively taken Florida, the Republican-led Supreme Court would have not voted to end the recount, and we would be in a different situation today. Gore capitulated to Bush, and in 2004 Kerry capitulated to Bush again. So yes, the Democrats are spineless, and don't have any will to fight. Stop believing the Democratic straw man disinfo and learn to blame the real culprits. Nader has every bit to run for president as any American citizen, so lets concentrate on the real maniacs and move on.
      • stephant, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Ok, so he cost Gore the election and therefore he's evil. I mean, forget free speech and having your own ideas. You're the type of person that LOVES Ron Paul because he's screwing up the Republicans and hates Nader for the exact same reason.
    • andrgo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4This is the first time, and the last time I have ever/will ever say this:

      Nader rocks [for finally saying to my Democrat politicians what I've been trying to tell them.]
      • stephant, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You dare to question Democrats on digg??? BURRIED!!!! for thinking you know anything at all or are even entitled to an opinion!!! You will learn that Democrats don't need to listen to you, they know it all already.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3you are an idiot
    • toetagger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2How the ***** is the Dems going to impeach Bush for the war or Patriot Act etc, when they voted FOR it ALL? Even just recently, they voted yes, for more powers to spy on Americans. The Dems are complicit in ALL of this crap.
  • cindylauper, on 10/10/2007, -6/+21Amen
    • acephreak, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis in my penis!
    • SJKat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It seems that Americans are now pissed off about Bush because his effects on economy have started to show. Nobody had any trouble approving killing.
  • greenback1, on 10/10/2007, -16/+66Ralph Nader is the only true Liberal on the Left. He's also the only one who has a proven life long record of actually serving the people. Watch the documentary on his life "An Unreasonable Man" and then compare his record of public service to any of the other Candidates and it will be undeniable. Hillary past experience was serving on the Board of WalMart during their hallmark days of killing every small business American competitor in the country. She helped forge the formula for Chinese Slave labor producing cheap goods. Wake up Dems!
    • Bashell, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1I watched "An Unreasonable Man" (It's one of the movies available for online viewing for you Netflix people out there.) It was a one-sided kiss ass documentary that failed at doing its job (making him look like a revolutionary) and showed how out there he is.
      • SanTe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I've recently watched "An Unreasonable Man" as well and I disagree completely with Bashell's assessment. It wasn't one-sided, nor was it kiss ass. I thought it was a very fair and honest look at Nader's career, warts and all, including both praises and disagreements from several former staff members of his. I came away respecting Nader more, even while I was acknowledging the arguments made by those with whom Nader has had a falling out.
        • Bashell, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Example: Spent about 20 minutes talking about "Unsafe at Any Speed" but doesn't mention that he didn't have his license at the time the book was written, had never driven a car, and hadn't even been a passenger in the cars in question or that the NHTSA proved him wrong about the Corvair and Volkswagon being unsafe in 1972.

          Example #2: It mentions his pro-union but doesn't mention that he had an anti-union stance for companies that he ran, using underhanded tactics to bust the formation of unions by his underpaid employees.

          I understand that I'll get dugg down, because Nader said something bad about Bush, and on digg that means that he's never wrong or some ***** like that, but I'm just stating some facts here.
          • SanTe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Example: Spent about 20 minutes talking about "Unsafe at Any Speed" but doesn't mention that he didn't have his license at the time the book was written, had never driven a car, and hadn't even been a passenger in the cars in question"

            None of which is relevant. Only people who drive should complain about auto safety features?!?!...

            "or that the NHTSA proved him wrong about the Corvair and Volkswagon being unsafe in 1972."

            Can you cite a credible source for this? I've never heard this and would like to read more about it.

            "Example #2: It mentions his pro-union but doesn't mention that he had an anti-union stance for companies that he ran, using underhanded tactics to bust the formation of unions by his underpaid employees."

            Same as above. Source?
    • fixedcoma, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1http://movies.nabolister.com/links_page.php?movie=613
    • byrdgang, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Russ Feingold has to be the most liberal Democrat there is (at least most consistently liberal).
    • byrdgang, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Russ Feingold has to be the most liberal Democrat there is (at least most consistently liberal).
  • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -24/+9Ron Paul is this election cycle's Nader. He'll have the same effect as Nader did to Gore.
    • Somnabot, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Amen, brother.
    • inhaler, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13I disagree - Dennis Kucinich anyone?
      • kageki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm with you inhaler. After taking a closer look at Ron Paul I'm officially not endorsing him anymore. I don't think it's an accident that Ron Paul is actually getting media time, but who never makes it on tv? Kucinich.

        Kucinich outshines Paul on every count and he also endorses a new investigation on 9/11. His wife would make one of the hottest first lady if that isn't reason enough to vote for Kucinich.
    • gropo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Ross Perot is a much closer parallel.
    • CronoTrigger, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4How? If Ron Paul makes it onto the ballot, and then a third party comes along that is bigger than the republicans but similiar and Ron Paul is taking votes from this third party giving the win to the democrats, well, then I'd say you have a point.
    • tnoy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Nader and Gore are in different parties. If Ron Paul doesnt win the nomination, he'll have zero effect on the election. You cannot steal a vote if you're not on the ballot. How is that comparison even valid?
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Easily. The ballot is not all D or R.
        • tnoy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nader was a third party that basically took votes away from Gore which allowing Bush to win. Ron Paul is running as a republican. At the very most he'll take votes from other republicans in the primaries. The winner of the primaries will get the parties nomination for the presidential ticket. How, again, is it a valid comparison? As of right now, he's part of the R, R, R, R, R, R, etc ballot (in terms of the presidency). Does anyone know how our presidential elections work anymore?
        • soomprimal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Bush won due to electoral fraud committed by Katherine Harris in Florida. You can stop blaming Nader now, kthx.
    • Pfhreak, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Yeah, yeah, Gore losing in 2000 is all Nader's fault. It couldn't possibly have been NH, MO, OH, NV, or TN, all of which Gore lost by less than 4%, and any one of which would have given him the EC votes needed to win the overall race. It couldn't possibly have been that 50,000 voters where improperly purged from the voter rolls in FL. It couldn't have been Katherin Harris' overly-partisan handling of the recount. It couldn't have been the Preppy Riot. It couldn't have been the biased portrayals of Gore and Bush in the media, which contributed to the closeness of the race. et cetera ad nauseum.

      We all know it had to be the third party candidate, because all they ever do is create spoiler effect. We're only allowed the giant douche or the turd sandwich, and we'll like it, goddammit.
      • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I submit to you that the statistics show that, all else being equal, if Nader had not run Gore would have won. Most Nader voters exit-polled would have chosen Gore over Bush, and if we consider the Florida bits you would only need some small fraction of Nader voters to have voted for D/R to see Gore win.
        • Pfhreak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My point was not that it couldn't have been Nader, my point was that there were dozens of factors contributing to the giant cluster that was the 2000 United States Presidential election, and blaming Nader exclusively is short-sighted. Third party candidates played a part in splitting votes in 2000, just like they do every election, but Nader's relative popularity wouldn't have been an issue if not for a host of other factors which brought Gore close enough to 50% for the spoiler effect to have a noticeable impact. But many partisan hacks (in the case of '00, mostly Democratic partisan hacks) like to scapegoat minor parties by blaming their candidate's poor performance on the spoiler effect. If your candidate does well enough, the spoiler effect doesn't come into play. I find this scapegoating to be undemocratic, as it feeds the corrupt, partisan duopoly.
        • commernie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I remember reading a survey that asked Nader voters if they had voted for Gore, had Nader not been on the ballot. I recall the result of the survey being that most of them would have stayed home if the only two options were Gore and Bush. I think this makes sense, because someone who votes for Nader is way more to the left than Gore or Bush (or anyone from those two parties, for that matter), and probably (and correctly) regards republicans and democrats to be two branches of the same party.
    • thespiff, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6No he won't. The only people who have ever heard of Ron Paul are too busy commenting on Digg threads to vote for him. The real world has no idea he even exists.
      • Durinthal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Wait, we can vote for him already?
  • VeryBoredNow, on 10/10/2007, -17/+6Well, it's all going to be alright on September 25th ... WHEN HALO 3 COMES OUT!
    • soot, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Sadly enough, you make a pretty accurate point.
    • 4degrees, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Halo is just a product of marketing, the game in and of its self is sub par.
    • Phasmorphage, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0NO IT WILL BE BETTER WHEN YOU BUY THE NEW MACS AND SWITCH TO LINUX LOLOLOL
  • FreakyD, on 10/10/2007, -28/+5VOTE BUSH!!! 4 MORE YEARS!!!
  • Ozzsanity, on 10/10/2007, -25/+9Nader is the reason GWB is in office so he really should shut his mouth on this subject
    • horatiolust, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8All Gore had to do was win his home state of Tennessee and he would have been President, regardless of FL, SCOTUS, Nader, hanging chads, etc...

      Gore was so fracking lame...
      • Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Tennessee? You know Tennessee is a conservative state dont you?

        They dont care that he is from there, they vote for the conservative.
    • spurtle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I thought it was Pat Buchanan's fault.
    • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8gore had the votes, despite nader, despite illegal voter suppression, despite diebold machines, despite hanging chads, and despite katherine harris. gwb was selected, not elected.
    • toddcat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That is nonsense. Al Gore ran away from eight pretty good years and ran the most tepid campaign ever. If Gore had had any nerve whatsoever, he would have won so easily there would have been no way for the Republicans to steal the election.
    • center311, on 11/02/2008, -0/+0oh really?. What about the disenfranchisement of the African Americans in Florida? You dumb *****. Gore did win the election.... it was rigged. You should educate yourself. I bet you think that there are only 3 candidates.
  • tenrec, on 10/10/2007, -5/+72Impeachment 101 Quiz

    67 guilty votes are required to convict in a Senate impeachment trial.

    There are in the Senate:

    49 Democrats
    1 Independent
    1 Independent Democrat
    49 Republicans

    Assume that:

    A) All 49 Democrats and 1 Independent vote for impeachment (would never happen but assume it anyway)

    B) Lieberman, the Independent Democrat, would take a bullet meant for Bush so he would never vote for impeachment

    C) Arlen Specter (R-PA) would volunteer for a Bush firing squad so count on him for a guilty vote

    D) Of the 48 remaining Republican Senators, 15 would have to vote guilty to convict

    Question:

    Name the 15 remaining Republicans Senators would commit political suicide and vote guilty at a Bush / Cheney impeachment trial.

    Hint: Do not include in your list any of the 21 Senate Republicans who are up for reelection in 2008.

    Bonus Question 1:

    Explain how the House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could pass a Bush bill of impeachment.

    Remember: These are the same House Democrats, who with the majority of House votes needed, have still been able to pass the D.C. Voting Rights Act.


    Bonus Question 2:

    Name the most likely person to be called as the Bush / Cheney opening defense witness.

    Hint: He was the 42nd President of the United States and was himself impeached.



    • TheHydrogens, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21Great comment for putting everything in a little better perspective. Some people seem to want Bush impeached so badly that they can't see how unlikely it really is.
      I still find it hilarious that Clinton was impeached for cigar-poking a fat chick in the oval office, yet Bush has consistently abused the constitution, pissed off a large majority of Americans, and still remains above reproach. That tells any outside observers a little bit about American's priorities.
      • Dustin00, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11I don't care if they succeed, I want the hearings to be held.
      • Spoomeister, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ah-ah-ah! Correction!
        Lewinsky wasn't fat.
        • Whiskeytorofalc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1***** if she wasnt! she was the fattest intern in D.C. creating an indentation in the earths crust only matched by the Hoover dam
      • s1mph0ny, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Your comparison to Clinton's impeachment isn't as simple as it seems. Ross Perot was a much bigger force in keeping GHWB from being re-elected than Nader was in keeping Gore from being elected. Even though many people liked Clinton for his economic success while in office, the body of representatives were largely republican, and a the majority of the public voted against Clinton.

        Nothing really came of Clinton's impeachment (he's still making millions on books and speaking tours instead of sitting in jail for grand perjury). I'd be happy to see Bush impeached for his actions against the constitution and the American people, but it's hard to see anything meaningful come out of it.
      • r8rfan00, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I get so stinking tired of people who say Clinton was impeached for sex with Monica L. That is not why he was impeached. He was impeached for a violation of the law, specifically, lying under oath.
        • catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Well he was impeached for perjury about a blow job, so people just say he was impeached for a blowjob because it sounds more outrageous.
    • tnoy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22It takes less than 67 to bring the issue to the floor, which they havent done.
    • thespiff, on 10/10/2007, -2/+24You make good points. But, as the Clinton fiasco showed, all it takes is the movement for impeachment to make it on the floor for things to get all wacky. If the accusers brought their case effectively and the media picked it up in the right way, a lot of unlikely things could happen.
      Sadly, I think the Clinton fiasco left a bad taste in everyone's mouth with regard to impeachment, and people are hesitant to get behind it as a result.
      • tritisan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Sadly, I think the Clinton fiasco left a bad taste in everyone's mouth"

        Especially Monica's.
    • IADTatami, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I suppose there's a very good reason for them to continue funding the abominable waste of resources that is the occupation of Iraq, and for their approval of Bush's request for increased domestic spying powers too?
      • IADTatami, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'm starved for evidence that the Democratic Party doesn't share the goals of the current administration. I want some basis upon which to build hope for the future. See, I don't have any at the moment.

        I'm currently of the opinion that if there is hope to be found, it's not to be found among the ranks of the Democratic Party. To be perfectly honest, when I look at the Democratic Party, I don't see liberals, but rather a gaggle of authoritarian, bribe taking, industry thralls.
    • SmokedL, on 10/10/2007, -3/+26What would you say of a cop that did not chase a murderer because he thought he would fail?
      What would you say of a military commander sitting around doing nothing but make empty speaches while his army is decimated and his land destroyed?

      I see this as directly comparable. The Bush administration is actively harming the US and two other countries. The democrats are making empty gestures instead of fighting.

      I don*t require them to succeed.
      I DO require them to TRY, because anything else is plain dereliction of duty.
    • dev0null, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Whatever happened to "due process"? Not impeaching Bush either implies either: 1. he hasn't made an impeachable offense. or 2. Democrats have made a political calculation, perhaps like above, not to do so. I'd rather not see this administration end with that ambiguity, but that's where we are.
    • headt0thebunker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Then start recalling every sorry sob that we think won't support a motion to impeach Bush....I think by the time you get to the second one....they will all be team players.
    • inboulder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The actual success of an impeachment bid pales in importance compared with the Democrats' duty to uphold the Constitution. The Democrats are compelled to at least try, and by doing so expose some truths, or they are complicit in the crimes of the current Bush administration.
    • jae1227, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Don't we all know that a GOP senators will not vote against their own president. The same thing happened to Clinton, ALL the Dems voted with him and several repugs.
  • havenophear, on 10/10/2007, -18/+4Said the guy who is responsible for Bush being in office in the first place with his 0% chance of winning and running anyway and stealing the votes that otherwise would have gone to the dem nominee. Thanks Ralph.
    • center311, on 11/02/2008, -0/+0nope. you are wrong you should educate yourself. What about the disenfranchisement of the African Americans in Florida? You dumb *****. Gore did win the election.... it was rigged. You should educate yourself. I bet you think that there are only 3 candidates.
  • justinx0r, on 10/10/2007, -8/+7I always see people on Digg saying "the Democrats can't do anything because Bush veto's everything" (even though it's not true).

    What's your excuse now?
    • christor, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6There are more than 33 Republicans in the Senate.
      • justinx0r, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Bill Clinton was impeached by the House. The Democrats control the House right now. What's your excuse now?
  • EvanVolm, on 10/10/2007, -11/+18I actually agree. I thought things would change once the Dems got into office. What happened? They caved and gave whatever Bush wanted and are still doing it. ***** pansies. Ron Paul 08.
    • bemenaker, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Pansie ass Dem's have the mindset that they win the WH in 08 if they sit by and do nothing but stall until then. These a$$hats (used for profanity filters before you say $h1t) haven't done what we put them there for. It's retarded and they shouldn't be reelected either.
  • bowens44, on 11/12/2007, -15/+2Nader handed bush the White House, ho cares what that idiot thinks?
    • horatiolust, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3All Gore had to do was win his home state of Tennessee and he would have been President, regardless of FL, SCOTUS, Nader, hanging chads, etc...

      Gore was so fracking lame...
      • Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Daja vu?

        no you just made the same moronic comment twice!


  • soot, on 11/12/2007, -3/+23I ***** hate Congress and Speaker Pelosi for the way they've turned a deaf ear to the American public; their illogical "hands-off approach" and how they've pretended like we don't want impeachment. And for them to do it after having won both houses last fall and having been sent a clear message from the voters. Its more than obvious that they're playing it into their politics, by waiting until it gets worse for the president. It makes me want to scream. I absolutely ***** hate them.
    • christor, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1That's one interpretation of what they're doing - and the most cynical one at that. But it might also be that they're working within the limitations of the political reality - which is that despite the Democrats' taking both houses, many districts returned fire-breathing, bomb-iraq-and-iran-and-hang-the-10-commandments-in-the-rubble Republicans. I agree that Dems need to press harder (much harder). But the real problem here is the Republicans, who after all failed to investigate *anything* for years before the Dems came back to power, failing in their basic duty of providing some accountability.
      • thespiff, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2How can you say that getting rid of the Repulicans will fix things when the Republicans are the only ones who have been strutting around with clear goals and pushing their agenda. Until the Dems actually start trying to do something and fail due to Republican obstacles, I don't think the Dems have earned our support in removing those Republican obstacles.
        • christor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I'm confused by this. Are you claiming that the Republican numbers in the Senate (enough for a filibuster) have not blocked the Dems from cutting funding for the war, advancing a timetable, etc.? I'm not trying to absolve them of any guilt for not trying harder (and for capitulating too soon). But the Republicans oppose all those things... and they can filibuster. Every agreement concerning what comes to the floor is reached in the shadow of the votes that will be cast.
    • dev0null, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Pelosi said at a political rally last year that she'd like to see the people's anger directed to electing more Democrats. Today, you gotta wonder if it was simply to grab power for her "team". Do Democrats really represent voters any better than their opponents?
    • Brand83, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Forget impeaching bush... its kind of a lost cause.

      What I cant understand is why with Dems in control of the house and a fair amount of republicans on their side don't they flat out find a way to get out of Iraq? Ohhh wait... cause then everyone would have to take in other aspects for the 08 election.

      God politicians suck!!!
    • scroobyrooberoo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Dugg down because dumbass here can't accept that the situation is better than the alternative of Reds being in power. Only reason Dems carried both houses is because of moderate dems.
  • camaroz06, on 11/12/2007, -1/+9Master Chief would have my vote for president. Who in their right mind would ever do anything bad to a country with MC in charge?

    On another note....yes the democrats are spineless and useless. If I were Bush I would be going all willy-nilly and do whatever I wanted to do since no one has enough moxie to actually do anything.
    • MeMongo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Was the Master Chief born in the U.S.? If not, he's ineligible to run for pres.
      • camaroz06, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0haha!
        even if he wasnt would you want to stop him from putting his name on a ballot? I think not!
    • YourDoom123, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1he already is...
  • Zamslam, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0Ralph: who is it that you think will immediately become president should GWB get impeached. Do you consider him to be an improvement? The demos don't.
    • camaroz06, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If he were impeached he would still be president, he needs to be removed also in order for him not to be President.
      • bemenaker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3They mean being successfully impeached, not just tried.
      • thespiff, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Impeachment is a censure. A formal declaration that he is a "bad boy". It is not the same thing as removal from office. Didn't we all learn this distinction during the Clinton fiasco? I was in middle school at that time and I still understand it...
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment
        • Zamslam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0From the original article: "The onetime Green Party candidate appeared at an anti-war rally in Washington Saturday, where he chastised "spineless, gutless" Democrats in Congress for failing to boot Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney from office."

          That's not to say that impeachment = boot, but that his intent was to boot. Hence my comment.

      • Zamslam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Semantics, unless you don't think Nader doesn't think he should be removed. If you replace "impeach" in my post with "removed" does you then get my point? Impeaching without an intent to remove is partisan BS time wasting. No Half Measures --Laphroaig
    • dev0null, on 10/10/2007, -0/+410 Impeach Cheney
      20 Impeach Bush
      30 Impeach Pelosi ! for taking so long to do it
      Run
    • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2President Cheney would be an *improvement*.

      Nobody has problems hating Cheney. Bush is his popular (~30%) shield.

      Cheney does not gain more power from personally having the Presidency. Instead, he loses political power.

      So enough about "OMG CHENEY CAN'T IMPEACH".
    • crobathias, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1and it isn't all about getting a particular person in office either, its about sending a message to all who follow that we wont put up with the ***** they try to pull
  • habbofresh, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Is this the same Ralph Nader who's the son of Police Chief Clancy Nader?
    • D0m0kun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0No. No, it is not. Clancy Nader is a figment of your imagination. Google it.
    • slenderdog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes it is, and he eats hot dogs.
  • airiox, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4Lincoln did the same thing bush did, but worse and he is regarded as the greatest president in US history.

    I don't like Bush that much, but still give me a break, imagine what these people would do when Lincoln threatened the head of the supreme court that he would put him in jail if he didn't shutup about his war being illegal.
    • ncc74656m, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1The South will rise again!

      Only to get bitchslapped again. Shutup, damned Confederate wannabe.
    • orp2000, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Comparing Bush to Lincoln? Get a clue dude!
    • thespiff, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5So you're saying that the War in Iraq is as noble a cause as the North's goals in the Civil War? I won't even get into the slavery issue, since anyone whose read a history textbook past high school knows that the end of slavery wasn't his primary goal. Show me the impending destruction of the union that will take place if we pull out of Iraq and I'll buy your argument.
      • airiox, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You will if we pull out of Iraq, you will see the destruction of this great nation within 15 years. Too bad I will find no satisfaction in showing you that you were wrong. You people just don't realize that this is already WW3.
    • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11) If Lincoln got away with it, it doesn't make it right.
      2) Bush's suspension of Habeas corpus is far far less justifiable than even Lincoln's.
      3) Look up what Lincoln had to say about the Mexican-American war. (Hint: "Loony Lefty"?)

      """But to return to your position: Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose - and allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you don't.""""
    • airiox, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Fact still remains there are parallels of what Bush has done with what Lincoln did. I never said Bush was Lincoln, I merely pointed out that in a similar time of unrest another president took things 10 times further than Bush has and he is the greatest president ever. Is Bush 1/4 as smart as Lincoln? No, but his actions of detaining people the FBI and CIA consider to be a threat to an imminent threat to the nation, i.e. terrorism, has its parallels with another time in history.

      I think you people fail to realize the gravity of the situation. You sit here and play politics like a bunch of 13 year old pubescent school boys meanwhile an entire region is planning our destruction. And rather than supporting the effort to do something about it, you undermine it, demeaning and degrading our president. Don't like him, fine. But he is still our president and he deserves just the slightest amount of respect. I for one will not let a bunch of looney toons oversea my death no matter how much they yell at scream about politics.
      • JonParker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It's the whole hysterical "planning our destruction" thing that makes the right look like idiots. Do terrorists want to hurt us? Of course, and appropriate steps need to be taken to prevent it. But the idea that a bunch of idiots living in caves are capable of destroying us is just ludicrous. Get a grip on reality.l

        Bush deserves no respect, and he gets none from me.
    • Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1im sorry, when did Lincoln invade a country for his own personal profit?

      No, The Confederate States don't count as a country.!
  • mikemil828, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3So say the democrats impeach Bush, then what? I'll tell you what, the vote will be split between party lines and Bush stays in office, I hate to say it, but it's the truth. The only real effect of impeaching Bush is that he can't run for president again, a fat lot that would do because he already is on his second term and can't run again. The best thing democrats can realistically do is try to clean up the mess Bush has made instead of wasting time on futile efforts such as impeachment.
    • bemenaker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6How about they just stop his crap, quit authorizing his wiretapping, his bs war's, his bs prison camps.....
    • dev0null, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But they've barely cleaned up a thing, only scratching the surface. Dems have been impotent for almost a decade now.
      • mikemil828, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They have what, only half a congress? While they have to fight through the other half of congress, the executive branch, the judicial branch, and the fourth estate? Give em a break, they simply don't have the power to dictate the president's agenda like Gingrich did.
    • slenderdog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Our luscious democrats are like our luscious republicans. They all want to use unlawful wiretaps to hunt down their enemies and kill them.
  • delrin500, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Nader was right on, but we keep looking to Democrats to "save us" from the evil Republicans but we have the power, WE ARE THE PEOPLE if we organized together and revolted against this stuff we could change the world. But due to media consolidation and apathy of most Americans we who are "in the know" are paralyzed to do anything. We are trying but it is an uphill battle. Democrats don't care they are making money on the death and bloodshed just like the administration, the only real difference is that not as many democrats are conservatives who are hardwired with the authoritarian mindset and completely willing to follow someone who says that "these are you enemies and i can protect you if you just do everything i say without question".
    • thespiff, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3We are individuals and not a hive-mind, it's not so easy for us all to act without a leader to speak for us whom we can support. Without an intelligent and charismatic leader behind the movement we will never successfully organize.
  • rmxz, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8Don't blame me, I voted for Nader.
    All you guys who voted for democrats should be ashamed you gave the country to the republicrats again.
    • soot, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5I think you've got it the other way around.
      • coopaloop, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0RMXZ definitely has it the other way around. How can he say we gave it to Republicans when he threw away his vote and gave the Democrats one less vote? One less vote that could have made the difference in Florida.
        • rmxz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0A vote for the democrats was thrown away just as surely as a vote for Nader. Voting for the lesser of evils just because they're democrats is a sure way to encourage the democratic party to keep picking lesser-evil-but-still-evil candidates. Next time try voting for someone good and hope that one of the major parties notices where your votes are going.
    • jocknerd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I did the same back in 2000. The Dem's weren't listening. Ralph Nader is probably the most intelligent, reasonable "politician" out there and he's the only one I would trust not to cave to the big corporations.
      • slenderdog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Well, I voted for Thanatos. So there.
  • otaku22, on 10/10/2007, -11/+10Ralphie baby, if it weren't for you, Bush would never have been President.
    • thesoze, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2excellent point, excellent!
    • jessehadden, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Utter and complete B.S. It appalls me that the "liberal" Dems have successfully sold the self-serving notion that going outside of the pro-war-ultra-extremist-conservative two-party duopoly is somehow aiding one specific party in that blend. If you care to examine the history of it with a critical eye, you will note that your revered Democratic candidate won both the popular and (if it were allowed to matter) the electoral vote. He and his lawyer then rolled over and basically did everything they could to ensure that Bush's ridiculous arguments went unchallenged in the Supreme Court.

      Do you remember the old Charlie Brown comics, where Lucy would say she'd hold the football while Charlie kicked it? Charlie would always point out that, each time he got a running start, Lucy would move the ball away at the last second, causing Charlie to fall when he went to kick. Lucy would always promise that this time, for real this time, she wouldn't move the ball. Charlie never, ever learned. Will the supporters of the Democrats do the same?
      • diggopolous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I like duopoly I get out of jail free not one but two times
    • justinx0r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, ***** people exercising their right to RUN FOR ***** PRESIDENT. I'm sorry he wasn't picked by the mainstream or was a puppet like the Democrats and Republicans.
  • reuscel, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Why didn't the Al Gore of 2008 run in 2000? Then we wouldn't be in this mess.
    • christor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He did, but we were all focused on which of the candidates would be more fun to have a beer with. Though, I have to say, I wonder why anyone ever thought Bush would be a good drinking buddy. Good drinker, maybe, but buddy?
      • slenderdog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You'd have to peg him with a beer can to get him to stop talking *****.
    • dev0null, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Or maybe Al Gore of 2008 would never have existed if it weren't for his 2000 experience. One of those fate things...
  • 31073, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8They aren't spineless or gutless. They want the country to suck all the way up to the 08 election.
    • slenderdog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Which means, yes, they aren't spineless, nor gutless, just USELESS.
  • conrail, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3***** ralph nader.
  • misfit410, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7Anyone who supports that twit put the "Nad" in Nader

    "They aren't spineless or gutless. They want the country to suck all the way up to the 08 election."

    Problem is no matter how much you hate the War, or Bush.. the country does not suck, life is currently great here, and the Dems have enough power currently to do anything they needed to fix it..... but they have not changed a thing.
    • thespiff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"and the Dems have enough power currently to do anything they needed to fix it"
      No they don't. It's called a presidential veto.
  • Jareth86, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Ironicly, if Nader had dropped out in 2000, Gore would be president. Hell, the same could be said about 2004. There was a reason the republicans fought so hard to get him on the ballot...
    • colberrep, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Maybe if the dems had stood up for universal health care back then instead of selling out.
  • paulievox, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7wow. i'm tired of the "gore would be president if it weren't for nader" argument.
    guess how many electoral votes nader got? 0.
    gore won in the popular vote anyway.
    americans vote based upon who we feel is best suited to run the country.. not based upon "a vote for X goes to republicans".
    sheesh.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000#National_results
    • dev0null, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And if don't like the rules of the game, namely the electoral college, then, instead of wining about 2000, change them in time for 2008.
    • illegalcortex, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Your post is bizarre. National results (i.e. popular vote) don't matter one bit when it comes to who becomes president. The whole argument behind Nader throwing the election is his affect in Florida. From the same page you linked to:
      "Democrats blamed third party candidate Ralph Nader for taking the election away from Gore. Nader received some 97,000 votes in Florida. According to the Washington Post, exit polls there showed that "47 percent of Nader voters would have gone for Gore if it had been a two-man race, and only 21 percent for Bush," which would have given Gore a margin of some 24,000 votes over Bush.[10] Some Democrats claim that had Nader not run, Gore would have won both New Hampshire and Florida and won the election with 296 electoral votes. "

      Now, whether you think this should be used to criticize Nader is a separate issue. But rational people on both sides of THAT question should be able to simply crunch the numbers and realize that, historically speaking, Nader changed the outcome of the Florida race.

      Personally, I think all the effort and money that's put into third party candidacies should instead be redirected into ballot reform. I voted for Nader (not a Floridian), but I knew it would be a wasted vote without something like an instant runoff system.
      • soomprimal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Actually, Katherine Harris' illegal removal of 50,000 Democratic-leaning voters changed the election, by a pretty big margin. Nader is the Democrats fall-boy because guess what, they are too spineless and gutless to stand up against voter fraud, and so we're back to the original argument.
  • lukifer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Ralph was the guy who convinced me that Gore was no different than Bush. I'm still a little miffed about that.
  • ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -9/+8***** Nader and digg me down if you want, but the fact is I WATCHED him on television say that there was no substantial difference between Al "Inconvenient Truth" Gore and George W. "T. F. SHOCK AND AWE" Bush and that Bush had a stronger position to stand on. No difference between a man with decades of pro-environmental background since college and a failed oil tycoon. I respected him running as a third-party candidate, I respected those who voted for him, but as soon as those spiteful, self-indulgent, and childish words came out of his mouth I decided that he could go ***** himself. He's not the cure, he contributed to the problem.
  • BluesFan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The title says it all.I don't know who I'm mader at Bush or the democrats who don't do anything about him.
  • RealHyperX, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6gutless democrats - sums them up just right!
    • dev0null, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Let the Democratic party die and have another party fill its void.
  • Mworthin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Go get 'em Ralph. Why they haven't impeached this frat-boy and his minions, I'll never know.
    • vonnegut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Obviously, its because Bush hasn't committed any impeachable offenses.
  • reed311, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Yeah, but Nader caused Gore to lose the election. He caused Gore to run a really pathetic campaign. He caused Gore to act like a whipped dog in the debates. We're only allowed to have two parties in this country. Just because there is little difference between the parties, doesn't give Ralph Nader the right to interfere with the democratic process.
    • parasitewasp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@reed311


      You are free to vote for whoever you want to in this country...think about it.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You forgot the /sarcasm tag.

      For all intents and purposes we have a two-party system. Independents and Green party aren't much but a distraction. Until we move to something like taxpayer funded voting, the parties and the corporate sell-outs are the only ones with the money to get commercial air time.

      And even then, some of the stations have refused to air commercials by Democrats rebutting some of Bush's propaganda -- so there you go. It's all about money.

      Nader brings up good points about gutless Democrats, but how often do the American people pay enough attention to tell the good guys from the bad guys? They might here Arlen Specter pound the table demanding Gonzales or someone else answer some questions. They might not know that he chose not to swear in the CEO's of Oil companies when they came to testify. Unless people are sharp, they will NOT know that Specter has consistently provided NO oversight, or follow up on his investigations. He does powerful speeches and can convincingly get outraged -- but later, when you check back, no corporations or crooks have gone to jail.

      Then we have lazy people who say; "All the Dems and Republicans are corrupt -- they are politicians." Which gets the crooks off the hook, and punishes people who are doing the good work.
    • slenderdog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Gore caused Gore to run a pathetic campaign. Gore caused Gore to act like a whipped dog in the debates.
  • dogster, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Democrats are controlled by CFR. Only anti-CFR candidate is Ron Paul. Go to http://RonPaul.meetup.com to join the rEVOLution!
    • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Ron Paul is an anti abortionist...I'd never vote for him.
      • slenderdog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Darn it.
      • skipdog172, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You'll never find a candidate who you agree 100% on all issues with. Only Ron Paul can change this country.
  • hagbard72, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5"Spineless and Gutless Democrats"? No, more like co-conspirators. The Democrats are in no way innocent of what's been going on the past seven years. They can hang right next to Bush and his gang of outlaws.
  • Gustomucho, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I would replace "Democrats" with "Americans" in the title. I feel for you, if you say something you can be jailed and tortured. Land of the Free?... land of Bush/Oil/Warmongering/Neocons is more like it.
  • huskerdude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4He's not wrong. The Democratic party has utterly let down it's supporters and constituents since regaining political power in Washington. They have done nothing of note. Were it not for the fact that the alternative is so horrifyingly unacceptable, I'd say it's time to vote most of the current Democrats in the Congress out of office.
  • dev0null, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Meanwhile, GW Bush & Cheney run out the clock, laughing all the way....
  • yournamehere, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2all we do is talk, talk, talk. nothing ever gets done.
  • HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Screw Nader. He got Bush into office by deciding the left wasn't left enough. And as pointed out above, he made a point at the time of explaining how it didn't matter if Bush won, as there was no real difference between Bush (R) and Gore (D).

    He was so very, very wrong. And he could start by apologizing instead of criticizing others.
    • gemmakicn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So because he wanted to stand up for his principles he was wrong?

      He's the kind of president you should have, to be honest bush may be bad, but he's not that much worse than most of your presidents.
      • HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Bush does stand up for his principles. Which is a huge part of the problem. He thinks to change your mind is a bad thing. Stick to your guns, despite what reality says.
  • colberrep, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Nader is THE man. Someone who actually would hold corporations accountable, unlike ron paul who would have them run our country.
    • soomprimal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yeah thanks. I guess you haven't read Paul's articles on how corporate welfare is destroying this country? No? Yeah I thought you were assuming something.
  • rastagnac, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Nader did NOT get Bush into office, the Democrats did. THIRTEEN MILLION DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR GEORGE W. BUSH IN 2000. Only 2 million people voted for Nader. You elected Bush yourself, so stop bitching about Nader.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I didn't elect Bush. I voted for Gore (and even douchebag Kerry).
      • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That is not how elections work - but thanks for playing. (survey says Gore is a bigger douchebag than Kerry but the Democrats do have a lot of people in the running for King Douchebag)
    • jae1227, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Bush won the Presidency by 537 votes. If Nader did not run the 97,488 votes that Nader got would have gone to GORE!! Hell only 538 needed to vote Gore. But Nader got his way. Like a big baby Nader said that Al Gore made him lose.
      • hana012, on 02/04/2008, -0/+0His campaign was running against possibly the worst president of the United States. Nader cost him the election just as much as Bush did. He really coudl have stood up in some issues, but he didn't. He just made himself less electable.
  • crazywarthog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Mr. Nader, that is what happens to you when you have been castrated and feminized ! Nothing but girlymen !!!
  • eviltroll, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Nader calling the democrats gutless is a pot calling a kettle black.
    • ichbinladen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2More aptly, it's like Nader calling someone ugly.
  • peaceordeath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They're all POLITICIANS folks. Big surprise? I think not.
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The Impeachment process is an investigation.

    Just like normal court trials -- you don't just do them because you can convict -- you do them because the law was broken.

    By impeaching Bush, you re-pair a little of the damage done to the constitution. The investigations will provide more information on what was done. It's going to be pretty hard for MOST Republicans to NOT impeach, if for instance, one of the numerous allegations like War Profiteering are proved true.

    We have to investigate Bush, because we have torture, we have missing funds, we have countless acts of criminality in this administration. If we don't impeach Bush -- we set the precedent that we don't impeach anyone. For instance; Nixon would never have been impeached because, at the outset -- before investigations, the Republicans would not have voted for impeachment. Yet, Nixon resigned because it was obvious he was going to be impeached, and probably because further investigations would have revealed more dirt.

    So, kudos for pointing out how it stands right NOW for the votes -- but you are counting the conclusions before the investigation. Nobody decides a trial BEFORE the evidence. Let the Republicans take the heat for not impeaching a war criminal. It will perhaps destroy the Republican party if they do.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Don't Bogart that joint my friend. (HINT: Democrats control both houses of congress). Nixon resigned for the good of the country. Clinton should have resigned but he, like many Democrats, could give a rat-ass about the good of the country. (CLUE: impeachment in an indictment, not an investigation - investigations can lead to impeachment if High Crimes and Misdemeanors are found to have been committed (like Bill Clinton lying under oath)). So far the Democrats have not found evidence of High Crimes and Misdemeanors (although they have tried) so now they are relegated to whining. HINT2: we DO impeach because the last president was indeed impeached.
      • ryecatcher22, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Nixon resigned so that he could avoid impeachment because he knew that Ford would give him a pardon. Politicians don't give a ***** about "the good of the country." Naive much?
        • dev0null, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ford gave no such promise, and before you can sustain that accusation you'd have to prove his guilt. (Because in this country you innocence is presumed.) But what's the point? They're both dead.
  • nijato, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You reformists miss the whole point... and waste a lot of time.
    • rocket777, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Really, pray tell, what are we missing? Bush is the Hilter of the 21st century.
      • ryecatcher22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You give Bush far too much credit. He doesn't deserve that comparison. (as in it's too good for him)
      • dev0null, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And why don't you put your energies into actually doing something about it?
  • fixedcoma, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1http://movies.nabolister.com/links_page.php?movie=613
  • thesixthdesign, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Why not criticize the Republicans for not once but *umm..* twice for electing a loser as a president in the first place?
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1CLUE: the American people twice elected Bush as president (not the Republicans alone). I think we should blame the Democrats for putting up such crappy opposition. Hey, if the Democrats did not suck so bad - the Republican would be forced to stay in line.
  • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That one is going to leave a mark. Both parties are trying to see who can go down in flames faster - I think the Democrats are winning.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 70 of 70 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.