|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
![]() |
Tyler Durden
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 09:52 AM Original message |
Impeachment does not have to "work" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mmonk
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 09:57 AM Response to Original message |
1. I'm looking for a way for the press being forced to cover |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
judy
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 11:05 AM Response to Original message |
2. Besides, it is a matter of upholding the law |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OzarkDem
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 12:08 PM Response to Reply #2 |
10. Failure to impeach sets a bad precedent |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SlowDownFast
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 09:08 AM Response to Reply #10 |
72. Excellent point. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 11:16 AM Response to Original message |
3. I agree. These bastards need the hand brake. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tyler Durden
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 12:00 PM Response to Reply #3 |
7. These bastards need the AIR BRAKE. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ravy
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 11:22 AM Response to Original message |
4. If he is found not guilty by the Senate, will that weaken the ability |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tyler Durden
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 11:59 AM Response to Reply #4 |
6. I believe a majority but non convicting vote is called "Failure to Convict." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ravy
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 12:03 PM Response to Reply #6 |
8. I don't disagree with your reasoning, but |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Vincardog
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 01:29 PM Response to Reply #8 |
14. Jepardy for Crimes agains humanity and WAr Crimes would not attatch |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
nvme
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 04:04 AM Response to Reply #8 |
38. double Jeopardy |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TahitiNut
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 09:34 PM Response to Reply #4 |
24. No. The US is not a signatory to the Rome Treaty. Furthermore .. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
immoderate
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 10:43 PM Response to Reply #4 |
30. The Constitution specifies that impeachment is not a criminal trial. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WillyT
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 11:27 AM Response to Original message |
5. AMEN !!! - K & R !!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
me b zola
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 12:04 PM Response to Original message |
9. k&r |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
warren pease
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 12:54 PM Response to Original message |
11. It's too late to worry about having the god damned votes... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tyler Durden
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 05:13 PM Response to Reply #11 |
16. Hey Warren. Nice to see you. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
warren pease
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 05:42 PM Response to Reply #16 |
17. Hi yourself, and... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tyler Durden
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 09:16 PM Response to Reply #17 |
21. No arguments here, chum. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
warren pease
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 09:18 PM Response to Reply #21 |
137. Maybe more like the "village connivers..." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
H2O Man
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 12:55 PM Response to Original message |
12. Nominated. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
papau
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 01:19 PM Response to Original message |
13. I agree - K&R n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
snappyturtle
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 01:32 PM Response to Original message |
15. K&R Impeachment is long past due. To the naysayers: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bbgrunt
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 05:44 PM Response to Original message |
18. k & r--what you said. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bvar22
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 07:33 PM Response to Original message |
19. Business as usual! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AbbyR
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 08:20 PM Response to Original message |
20. Please please please impeach |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KharmaTrain
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 09:29 PM Response to Original message |
22. Impeachment Didn't Stop Clinton From Bombing Kosovo |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
omega minimo
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 03:51 PM Response to Reply #22 |
122. The Clinton Impeachment was BOGUS BULLSHIT and comparing this moment to that is a mistake |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Baby Snooks
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 09:31 PM Response to Original message |
23. Forget it... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dr.Phool
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 10:36 PM Response to Reply #23 |
29. Maybe we should impeach Pelosi and Reid first. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 07:15 AM Response to Reply #29 |
45. can't be impeached |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CK_John
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 09:38 PM Response to Original message |
25. I don't thing we have the votes in the House. I don't think you understand the politics of the House |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Senator
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 03:54 AM Response to Reply #25 |
36. The "politics of the House"... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sce56
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 09:47 PM Response to Original message |
26. I feel once the hearings begin the resultant evidence will shine out those votes! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Seabiscuit
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 07:18 AM Response to Reply #26 |
46. Wow! I just realized Adolph's features are so much easier on the eyes! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Richard D
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 11:29 AM Response to Reply #26 |
103. Scary . . . |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OPERATIONMINDCRIME
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 09:49 PM Response to Original message |
27. It Would Be Nothing More Than A Dog And Pony Show That Would Put 08 At Huge Risk. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
philosophie_en_rose
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 09:50 PM Response to Reply #27 |
28. Quit talking sense. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kenfrequed
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 11:24 AM Response to Reply #28 |
102. It is not sense. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Chipster
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 12:28 AM Response to Reply #27 |
34. Dog & Pony Show? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 06:50 AM Response to Reply #27 |
41. Agreed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Seabiscuit
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 07:23 AM Response to Reply #27 |
47. Impeachment is not a partisan issue. It's a Constitutional issue. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OPERATIONMINDCRIME
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 07:49 AM Response to Reply #47 |
49. "That means "must"." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Seabiscuit
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 08:16 AM Response to Reply #49 |
52. Save your mockery for the next time you look in the mirror. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OPERATIONMINDCRIME
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 08:23 AM Response to Reply #52 |
57. ROFLMAO!!!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Seabiscuit
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 08:33 AM Response to Reply #57 |
62. If that's the best you can do, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OPERATIONMINDCRIME
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 09:26 AM Response to Reply #62 |
77. It's All That Was Necessary To Respond To The Hilarious Post! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 08:41 AM Response to Reply #52 |
68. You're a lawyer? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Seabiscuit
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 09:22 AM Response to Reply #68 |
76. I never said it did. I said it "talks about how". See my post #73. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 09:37 AM Response to Reply #76 |
80. Your quote: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Shoedogg
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 08:19 AM Response to Reply #49 |
55. Main Entry: shall |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Seabiscuit
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 08:20 AM Response to Reply #55 |
56. Good for you. You got it right. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OPERATIONMINDCRIME
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 08:25 AM Response to Reply #55 |
58. Ain't The Definition Of The Word That's The Problem. It's The Ignorant Interpretation Of The Context |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Seabiscuit
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 08:34 AM Response to Reply #58 |
64. Laughin' your way to the looney bin? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 08:42 AM Response to Reply #55 |
69. But the constitution doesn't |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Seabiscuit
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 09:19 AM Response to Reply #69 |
74. I never said it did. I said it "talks about how". See my post #73. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 09:38 AM Response to Reply #74 |
81. Your quote |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Seabiscuit
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 10:56 AM Response to Reply #81 |
96. Are you reading comprehension challenged??? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 03:47 PM Response to Reply #96 |
120. Under normal circumstances |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
omega minimo
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 04:06 PM Response to Reply #120 |
126. So aside from semantic arguments, where does accountability come into play? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 07:09 PM Response to Reply #126 |
130. Dunno |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OPERATIONMINDCRIME
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 09:27 AM Response to Reply #69 |
78. Indeed. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 08:40 AM Response to Reply #47 |
66. No |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Seabiscuit
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 09:21 AM Response to Reply #66 |
75. I never said it did. I said it "talks about how". See my post #73. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 09:40 AM Response to Reply #75 |
82. No |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kenfrequed
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 11:03 AM Response to Reply #66 |
98. Wow |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OPERATIONMINDCRIME
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 11:09 AM Response to Reply #98 |
99. Now There's A Skewed And Narrow Minded Argument For Ya. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kenfrequed
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 11:36 AM Response to Reply #99 |
104. The original argument you posed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OPERATIONMINDCRIME
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 12:12 PM Response to Reply #104 |
113. It Would Be A Dog And Pony Show. And My Intitial Post Outlines Exactly Why. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kenfrequed
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 12:39 PM Response to Reply #113 |
114. Right.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kenfrequed
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 12:41 PM Response to Reply #114 |
115. And |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 02:06 PM Response to Reply #114 |
117. Unfortunately, it's too late for the Democrats to take a principled stand |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kenfrequed
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 03:28 PM Response to Reply #117 |
119. The other 'I' word |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 04:47 PM Response to Reply #119 |
128. That's how you'd answer if you were the Speaker? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 04:43 PM Response to Reply #117 |
127. there was no majority for impeachment last january |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 04:54 PM Response to Reply #127 |
129. You may very well be right |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kenfrequed
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 07:17 PM Response to Reply #129 |
133. Because |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 08:42 PM Response to Reply #133 |
136. You still haven't answered the questions |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kenfrequed
![]() |
Mon Sep-17-07 07:02 AM Response to Reply #136 |
142. No |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kenfrequed
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 07:24 PM Response to Reply #117 |
134. The time it is too late |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 11:14 AM Response to Reply #98 |
101. No |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Seabiscuit
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 11:40 AM Response to Reply #101 |
106. That's not the issue at all. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 03:50 PM Response to Reply #106 |
121. You wrote: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kenfrequed
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 11:41 AM Response to Reply #101 |
107. Actually you are a bit off |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 07:15 PM Response to Reply #107 |
132. I'm not off |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kenfrequed
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 07:45 PM Response to Reply #132 |
135. Wow |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk
![]() |
Mon Sep-17-07 06:39 AM Response to Reply #135 |
139. The only point I've made in this whole silly subthread |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kenfrequed
![]() |
Mon Sep-17-07 06:52 AM Response to Reply #139 |
141. You know |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk
![]() |
Mon Sep-17-07 07:04 AM Response to Reply #141 |
143. Thanks for sharing what you'd do. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kenfrequed
![]() |
Mon Sep-17-07 07:39 AM Response to Reply #143 |
144. No problem |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk
![]() |
Mon Sep-17-07 07:48 AM Response to Reply #144 |
145. Who is my candidate? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 08:58 AM Response to Reply #47 |
70. Stop blowing smoke up our ass |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Seabiscuit
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 09:16 AM Response to Reply #70 |
73. You want a cite? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OPERATIONMINDCRIME
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 09:33 AM Response to Reply #73 |
79. This Is Your Post #73? That's What We Were Supposed To Read? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Seabiscuit
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 10:43 AM Response to Reply #79 |
90. Your failure to grasp rudimentary logic as it applies to a legal document |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OPERATIONMINDCRIME
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 10:48 AM Response to Reply #90 |
91. ROFLMAO!!!! Oh How You Just Keep Goin! Keep Holding Onto Your Flawed Logic. Grasp It With All |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Seabiscuit
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 10:54 AM Response to Reply #91 |
95. Ignorant hypocrisy knows no bounds when it comes to arguments based on silly smilies. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OPERATIONMINDCRIME
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 10:59 AM Response to Reply #95 |
97. Awww, C'mon Pal. Don't Avoid The Challenge. After All, It's YOUR Argument. Can You Support It? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Seabiscuit
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 11:37 AM Response to Reply #97 |
105. See my post #73 where my argument is fully supported, wiseguy. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OPERATIONMINDCRIME
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 12:05 PM Response to Reply #105 |
111. You Call That Being Fully Supported? ROFLMAO!!! You Supported NOTHING! LOL |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 09:43 AM Response to Reply #73 |
83. It's impossible |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Seabiscuit
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 10:49 AM Response to Reply #83 |
92. Wrong. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 10:52 AM Response to Reply #92 |
93. You're just wrong |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
philosophie_en_rose
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 11:43 AM Response to Reply #92 |
108. Did you go to law school at Liberty U or Regent's? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Seabiscuit
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 11:49 AM Response to Reply #108 |
109. Did you go to law school at Disneyland? Did the wizard at Fantasyland teach you constitutional law? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OPERATIONMINDCRIME
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 12:09 PM Response to Reply #108 |
112. Hmmm. I Was Thinking More Along The Lines Of From A Cracker Jack Box. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 11:03 PM Response to Reply #92 |
138. legal method 101 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 09:50 AM Response to Reply #73 |
85. Hogwash and you know it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Seabiscuit
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 10:52 AM Response to Reply #85 |
94. Hogwash right back at ya. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 07:14 PM Response to Reply #94 |
131. Don't be thick |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
omega minimo
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 04:04 PM Response to Reply #27 |
125. Speaking Of Dog And Pony Showboating...... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 10:45 PM Response to Original message |
31. Actually |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
provis99
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 11:00 PM Response to Original message |
32. Uhh. they wouldn't impeach even if they have the votes |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
HowHasItComeToThis
![]() |
Sat Sep-15-07 11:08 PM Response to Original message |
33. VOTE ON IT TO PUT THE FASCISTS AND FELLOW-TRAVELERS ON RECORD |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Niccolo_Macchiavelli
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 02:46 AM Response to Original message |
35. i find it sweet |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LeftCoast
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 04:01 AM Response to Original message |
37. Impeachment without a conviction = EXONERATION |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Seabiscuit
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 07:28 AM Response to Reply #37 |
48. Wrong. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
John Kerry VonErich
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 08:09 AM Response to Reply #48 |
51. Your right, and the LeftCoast is almost right |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Seabiscuit
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 08:29 AM Response to Reply #51 |
60. "Exonoration" as used in the 20th century is indeed a criminal law term: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
John Kerry VonErich
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 08:33 AM Response to Reply #60 |
61. Ok, you are right |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Seabiscuit
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 08:38 AM Response to Reply #61 |
65. I agree - we all do that sometimes. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
John Kerry VonErich
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 08:41 AM Response to Reply #65 |
67. Totally understandable |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
omega minimo
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 03:53 PM Response to Reply #37 |
123. Bullshit. Instead of pushing your bumpersticker, why not do some reading on afterdowningstreet.org |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Enrique
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 06:12 AM Response to Original message |
39. another bad reason for impeaching Bush |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lligrd
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 06:28 AM Response to Original message |
40. Impeach, Just Do It nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Norrin Radd
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 07:04 AM Response to Original message |
42. k+r |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 07:11 AM Response to Original message |
43. I wish we did, but we really don't have the votes in the House |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lame54
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 07:14 AM Response to Original message |
44. this should be the theme song for the dems |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
John Kerry VonErich
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 08:06 AM Response to Original message |
50. It seems you forgot that the reason to impeach is to convict. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
napi21
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 08:18 AM Response to Original message |
53. I don't think the Dems have the votes to pass a bill of impeachment. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bigtree
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 08:19 AM Response to Original message |
54. I don't think that will 'work' either |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
spanone
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 08:26 AM Response to Original message |
59. Bill Clinton was not 'convicted' IMPEACH NOW |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
John Kerry VonErich
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 08:34 AM Response to Reply #59 |
63. What happened after the Clinton? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
spanone
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 09:52 AM Response to Reply #63 |
86. because it was about sex, not about invading and occupying a nation on false pretenses |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kenfrequed
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 11:49 AM Response to Reply #63 |
110. Oh gods |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
John Kerry VonErich
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 02:33 PM Response to Reply #110 |
118. The reason is I believe it is just too close to elections to ever have impeachment. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rodeodance
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 09:07 AM Response to Original message |
71. we talk to ourselves all the time-the choir----need to constantly keep the phones |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
proud2BlibKansan
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 09:44 AM Response to Original message |
84. A friggin men |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 09:56 AM Response to Original message |
87. True, and then the Senate may have to convict |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 10:26 AM Response to Reply #87 |
88. bush is already |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Desertrose
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 10:26 AM Response to Original message |
89. After EVERYTHING this "resident" has done,the crime is NOT to impeach. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
govegan
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 11:12 AM Response to Original message |
100. Impeach or leave it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
trashcanistanista
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 01:11 PM Response to Original message |
116. I couldn't have said it any more eloquently! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
omega minimo
![]() |
Sun Sep-16-07 03:58 PM Response to Original message |
124. Impeachment is an indictment, followed by hearings and presentation of well-documented evidence |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Donald Ian Rankin
![]() |
Mon Sep-17-07 06:45 AM Response to Original message |
140. It's an argument worth considering, but I think better one year of Bush than four of Giuliani |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Mon Jun 17th 2024, 09:53 AM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
![]() |
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