|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) |
![]() |
RiverStone
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 02:17 PM Original message |
Is invoking the 25th amendment against Shrub really that far off? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
villager
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 02:18 PM Response to Original message |
1. I think it is imperative |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
northzax
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 02:23 PM Response to Reply #1 |
5. all the Congress has to do |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
madinmaryland
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 02:18 PM Response to Original message |
2. Wouldn't that make Cheney president? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NYCGirl
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 02:18 PM Response to Original message |
3. Considering that Reagan was pretty much out of it for most of his second |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
northzax
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 02:22 PM Response to Original message |
4. absolutely zero chance |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
villager
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 02:24 PM Response to Reply #4 |
7. seems pretty dire to me -- I don't know if the framers reckoned on "bughouse crazy" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ravenseye
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 02:34 PM Response to Reply #7 |
11. hmm no bughouse crazy clause? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
northzax
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 02:43 PM Response to Reply #7 |
17. no need for it though |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RiverStone
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 02:40 PM Response to Reply #4 |
14. Granted, its a long shot...yet it's been pondered by many before. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kelly Rupert
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 03:01 PM Response to Reply #14 |
22. Military interventionism is hardly unprecedented. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RiverStone
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 03:24 PM Response to Reply #22 |
24. Agree - military interventionism... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kelly Rupert
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 05:13 PM Response to Reply #24 |
26. Here's hoping. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
aquart
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 02:24 PM Response to Original message |
6. And get Gung Ho Cheney? Fat chance. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Life Long Dem
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 02:29 PM Response to Original message |
8. It's a fact that the generals have told Bush they already tried the surge in Baghdad and failed. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William769
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 02:30 PM Response to Original message |
9. Ain't gonna happen. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Strawman
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 02:31 PM Response to Original message |
10. Here's a thought... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kelly Rupert
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 02:39 PM Response to Reply #10 |
13. Only if the Vice President agrees the President is incapacitated. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Strawman
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 02:43 PM Response to Reply #13 |
16. You're right...the VP AND not the VP OR |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kelly Rupert
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 02:57 PM Response to Reply #16 |
20. Yeah. It seems our best bet on this plan |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Strawman
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 03:42 PM Response to Reply #20 |
25. In an age of "nuclear options" and other such power manuevers |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kelly Rupert
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 02:37 PM Response to Original message |
12. Absolutely zero chance whatsoever. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cosmik debris
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 02:40 PM Response to Original message |
15. You've been watching too many movies |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RiverStone
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 02:50 PM Response to Reply #15 |
18. Ummmm. Illegal war + death & distruction vs a blow job? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kelly Rupert
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 02:59 PM Response to Reply #18 |
21. Bad policy is not incapacitation. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bill McBlueState
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 02:50 PM Response to Original message |
19. read the amendment more carefully |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote
![]() |
Mon Jan-08-07 03:05 PM Response to Reply #19 |
23. exactly - the OP misunderstands the amendment |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Sat Sep 07th 2024, 07:11 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) |
![]() |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC