Okay, now see if I've got this right....(to those against impeachment)

[Joe Fields]

Does this about sum up your argument: You CHERISH the constitution so much, that you want to save it by not defending it.

Hmmm....

And Muhammed Ali would never have stood a chance against George Foreman...

And Helen Keller was impossible to teach...

And the N.Y. Giants didn't have a snowball's chance of winning the Superbowl...

And it was a waste of time to hold the Watergate hearings...

And two bicycle salesmen were wasting their time fooling around trying to build a flying machine...

And Elliot Ness was just wasting his time going after Al Capone on income tax evasion...


Now, one last time, to make sure I've got this right: If a task isn't EASY, then you are foolish to take it on.

[babylonsister]

1. Ha! At fiirst I hated this message,. now, not so much. Thank you. nt

[DainBramaged]

2. Tomorrow is August 1, how long will impeachment take?

And, since it is so important to impeach Booshe and NOT concentrate on electing Obama, what happens when the majority of voters who are not as schooled in Constitutional reality as we DU members are, vote for McSame as a fuck you to us for trying to go tit for tat because of (what they perceive to be) payback for Clinton?

When Dennis Kucinich endorses Obama, I'll take him seriously.

[kas125]

6. The "hearing" could take five minutes and then they could

vote. The man is on video admitting to crimes he's committed. We don't need long hearings if they just pick one issue like authorizing torture, signing statements, or ignoring subpoenas. They could pick one crime and get it done quickly. They won't, but they could.

[DainBramaged]

7. When DK endorses Obama, I'll take impeachment seriously

until then, I think he's simply trying to keep the spotlight on him.

[Joe Fields]

8. So then, because you think DK is grandstanding,

you are willing to allow Bush and his administration to get away with murder?

Hmmm...

[DainBramaged]

9. Nice assumption on your part. Nice try at bating me too.

I stated my case against impeachment. Let's get Obama elected, roll back the bogus Executive orders and signing statements, and pursue Booshe as a private citizen.


History will not treat the little douche bag kindly.

[Joe Fields]

13. So now you are putting an election above the constitution?

You should stop digging any time now.

[DainBramaged]

15. Your shovel is broken, sell your shit to someone else we're done.

[Joe Fields]

17. I don't recall lending you my shovel.

[Breeze54]

19. Awe, don't worry about him... He hates DK because DK supports unions.

:silly: (note the union logo in DB's sig line.) :crazy:

[Joe Fields]

10. Delete.

Wrong place.

[DainBramaged]

12. Me thinks if you don't like my opinion, piss off

Put my wrinkled old white ass on ignore. Because I don't agreee with you, I'm not worthy?

Grow up sonny, life is too short.

[Joe Fields]

14. I don't put people on ignore.

I'd rather bury them with logic.

[DainBramaged]

16. You have no logic, and I DO put people on ignore, including people like you

who are bored at 2:09 Am and think that DK is god .

Goodbye.

[Joe Fields]

18. Buh bye!

[tomp]

29. obama and impeachment have exactly what to do with each other?

sounds like you're saying if kucinich supported obama you would support impeachment. am i getting that right? how do you connect the two?

[Winterblues]

28. I think in Clinton's case it was about two weeks

:shrug: Not sure on Johnson...

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. The simple fact is that bush was careful to get official cover

for everything he did. Dennis can say whatever he wants about bush's claim that he was fooled by bad intelligence is transparently bogus, but it can't be proven false. When bush was at the top of his game post 9/11, there was nobody better at getting away with murder.

[Joe Fields]

5. Ah, but there's the beauty of it all.

Bush has publicly admitted to having prisoners tortured. That is an impeachable offense.

Bush openly admits to directing wholesale unwarranted spying on American citizens. That is an impeachable offense.

As was explained in the hearings last Friday by a professor of costitutional law, really, all that would be required would be an up and down vote. No need for a protracted trial.

All we require is Her Collaborator's blessing.

[DCKit]

4. That's odd. Same argument I hear for alt-energy and conservation all the time.

"It's too haaaarrrrrrd".

Way easier, I guess, to go without food as the bills continue to rise beyond our means to pay. In the case of the Constitution, way easier to suffer under fascist rule tomorrow than to make the hard choices now.

[Joe Fields]

20. I guess it's called, "Keeping their powder dry."

Even if they get a veto proof congress, I doubt very much if impeachment would happen.

[Breeze54]

11. “Lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for.” ~ Clarence Darrow ~

“To love is to risk not being loved in return. To hope is to risk pain. To try is to risk failure, but risk must be taken
because the greatest hazard in life is to risk nothing.”

``````````````

“Life is inherently risky. There is only one big risk you should avoid at all costs, and that is the risk of doing nothing.”

~ Denis Waitley ~

```````````````

“Hazards - There is an island of opportunity in the middle of every difficulty. Miss that, though, and you're pretty much doomed.”

~ Larry Kersten ~

````````````````

“If we are intended for great ends, we are called to great hazards.”

~ John Henry Newman ~

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/

:kick: & Recommended

[leftchick]

21. qui tacet consentire videtur

"he who is silent is taken to agree"

Thus, silence gives consent. Sometimes accompanied by the proviso "ubi loqui debuit ac potuit", that is, "when he ought to have spoken and was able to".

[KharmaTrain]

22. 33 GOOP Votes

I am firmly in favor of not only impeaching this regime, but going after all the crimes its committed...in courts, not in the political arena. People are expecting the Legislative to do the job of the Judicial...and asking politicians to play judge and jury...with an already rigged jury.

It's like Ali fighting Foreman and the refs have already decided that Foreman gets unlimited knock downs while Ali only gets to fall once. Or the Giants going into a game where one side can commit any foul and the refs decide that it's OK cause most of them are New Yorkers and winning is all that matters. In short, we have no refs out there.

As it stands, impeachment may pass the House, but is sure to lose in the Senate...where you still have asshats who thought that Nixon's crimes weren't worthy of impeachment, but Clnton's blowjob was. This is your jury...the "finders of fact". So...all this work is done to bring up charges and move them through, only to have 33 partisan hacks who not only wouldn't convict, but be assured the corporate media would claim that all of boooshies crimes were vindicated and it would all but end many other investigations of non-office holders who will be back to continue their destruction once the taint of this regime fades.

Before one can play impeachment, we need refs...fair and honest ones. Not a DOJ that refuses to honor the contempt citations or subpoenas and has gone from representing the people to become boooshie's private law firm. If the Goodling revelations don't tell you how bad things are, then you better read that report again...and then see how this regime is doing all it can to prevent any real hearings...and a reason many prefer to wait until after the elections...hoping for both a larger Democratic majority, new Senate rules (that will get rid of that 60 vote cloture rule) and restore independence to the Judiciary and make it possible to proceede with the tons of investigation of this regime.

Lastly, impeachment would sure feel good...it'd be like knocking out the quarterback (and be sure that the GOOP will be more than happy to return the favor in the future with another sham impeachment of their own) but the rest of the team still is out there...along with the crooked refs. Now if you want to try to win this game...good luck.

[leftchick]

23. Daniel Ellsburg: "I call it a coup; and with the complicity of Congress"

Monday, July 28, 2008
Transcript - Interview with Daniel Ellsberg

http://utdocuments.blogspot.com/2008/07/gg-welcome-to-salon-radio-with-glenn.html

<snip>

As somebody who was actually subjected to surveillance of that kind, whose psychiatrist’s office was broken into by the federal government in order to obtain damaging information on you and keep you in check or blackmail you or otherwise render you incapable of challenging the government and our political leaders in some way-- exactly the kind of abuses that FISÅ was intended to prevent and that Congress just once again enabled--how did you react, kind of, as a citizen? I know you said that you felt they violated their oath to the Constitution, anyone in Congress who voted for that. Could you elaborate on that a little as well?

DE: Well, I couldn’t help noticing as far back as 2001, when the so-called PATRIOT Act was passed, that acts that had been taken against me which were crimes had suddenly been legalized. The break-in to my psychoanalyst’s office, even without a warrant, is as I understand it, covered by the “sneak and peak” provisions of the PATRIOT Act. The use of the CIA against me in a psychological profile, which was illegal then, against their charter, was now legalized. The CIA has now been “freed” to cooperate directly with the FBI and with law enforcement to be part of a kind of secret police, a political police. The overhearing by warrant-less wiretapping is of course something that they had been doing all this time . So acts that confronted Nixon with impeachment and were clearly repudiated when they were discovered back in the 1970s and led to the ending of my trial but more importantly later consequences for the president, those acts in the wake of 9/11 have been legalized.

There’s a contrast here. If the President had done these various things for a day or a week or a month in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I think very few people would have bothered or felt like criticizing that in an emergency, of necessity, when they didn’t know what was happening. But to keep these things going secretly for six or seven years is a different matter.

And worst of all, as you point out, Congress when actually called on moved to legalize these things now. I’m not a lawyer--I’m a defendant --but it’s a question in my mind whether you can simply amend the Çonstitution by majority votes like this, whether they can really make these things legal against the Fourth Amendment and other amendments of the Constitution. But at least Congress did what they could with the amendments to the FISA act to legalize these things when the President called on them to do it.

So here’s the difference in the situation. As I say, I thought it was ominous even in 2001. I think it’s worse than ominous now. There has been a kind of fait accompli. I call it a coup; and with the complicity of Congress. Namely: there was a theory that President Nixon espoused, when he told David Frost after he was out of office: “When the president does it, it’s not illegal.” That was a philosophy that he acted on; but it was rejected then, as clearly incompatible with our form of government, with our Constitution, with democracy, with freedom as we understood it and practiced it.

[OnionPatch]

24. Do you want to cherish it by blowing the best chance we've had in a decade

to accumulate enough power to save our country from these thugs? I can see it now, we try to impeach now, we don't have the numbers, the media puffs it up as a pre-election, partisan ploy and there we are after the elections this fall with LESS power than we have now and the GOP poised to destroy everything they haven't already. That's really going to save the constitution. :crazy:

I'm sorry, but it doesn't make any sense to me, as much as I'd love to see Bush impeached. It should have already been done long ago. It's too late now. I'm for waiting until we win larger majorities this fall, then use our increased numbers in the congress and our control of the Whitehouse to prosecute everyone of the evil, corrupt MFers and drive them out of their dark, damp corners.

I'm for the plan that will save our country in the long run, instead of the one that just makes us feel good and righteous for a few months.

[Joe Fields]

25. What exactly is the plan that will save us in the long run?

Do you really believe that when and if our democratic congress critters gain a super majority, then all of a sudden justice will be swiftly meted out and all will be right with the world?

I won't hold my breath on that one.

[OnionPatch]

30. But there won't be any justice at all under these circumstances.

They don't even have the votes to impeach right now. And it will cost us some votes this fall, maybe enough for us to lose some important races. What will that do to help us? Maybe it sounds dramatic, but the world is doomed if the GOP regains any more power.

And I'm under no impression that Bush and his buddies are going to get what's coming to them now or later. But I do believe it's much more possible that there will at least be some convictions after we have a genuine majority in the congress than there would be if we try to impeach now.

[bryant69]

26. Laughs

Yeah that about covers it. Why don't you quit your job and work on developing a cure for cancer (unless your job already is to develop a cure for cancer). Don't let the facts or effectiveness of such a course of action stop you - after all Cancer is a killer. Get out there and stop it.

What's that you say? You don't have a medical degree? You don't have any prospects for success? Don't be a quitter, except in regards to your current job. Just get out there and cure cancer.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Enrique]

27. no that's not my argument

my argument is that it could impede economic and social progress in the country.