Is it time to impeach?

[Clarence]

I think it's time. I never thought it would never be time. The time is now. Any disagreement? I need to educate myself on the process and the best approach to get people on board. So I'm building a mega-amplifier on the peak of our roof. 10k jigga-watts!!?

Repected colleagues and distinguished fellows..shoot me.

I'm starting here Definition of impeach - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Impeachment in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature which allows for formal charges to be brought against a civil officer of government for conduct committed in office. The actual trial on those charges, and subsequent removal of an official on conviction on those charges is separate from the act of impeachment itself: impeachment is analogous to indictment in regular court proceedings, trial by the other house is analogous to the trial before judge and jury in regular courts. Typically, the lower house of the legislature will impeach the official and the upper house will conduct the trial. At the Federal level, the House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching the President, Vice President and all other civil officers of the United States. Officials can be impeached for: "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate.

say anything about anything.

[Slevin57]

I don't think the impeachment of the president will solve any problems.

I am begining to see that the problems are system wide.

It seems every law coming out has a "Terrorist" exception, or a footnote to foward money for "national security"

I see it like adding a grain of sand per day to a pot. Eventually we will have enough to do something, but not without wasting alot of our time.

I do think alot of this spending is because of the Presidents goals. But, I know that a majority of the things done in this country that effect the average person are done by congress, not by the president. It's just convient to blame Bush because everyone seems to believe that he must control the entire government. When in reality he doesn't affect all that much in the day-to-day scheme of things.

[rmnunez]

Its always time to impeach, this just depends on the impeacher's 'leftism', conceptually its like a fuel gauge, when its observed leaning towards the left, impeachment is necessary, if you see it the other way, it never is.

[Clarence]

ha hee hee! yeah! I'm ready

to the skeptics. I need you to shoot holes so I can better explain my position and timing. In a nutshell, we need more gridlock. with the funding for our troops until sept in, we got time to responsibly request our elected officials turn their attention elswhere for just about a month. Then the election is conducted on different terms see? kinda will narrow the field

I know impeachment means nothing/everything

Impeachment proceedings may be commenced by a member of the House of Representatives

it shouldn't be Ron Paul. Who else is there? This could be the crux

[Clarence]

Representative Offices - United States House of Representatives, 110th Congress, 1st Session

a link to a list of the representatives available for this. Why is the gov't default font soo tiny. I just kept clicking until I found what I wanted.

[Osborn F Enready]

I will add to this thread Clarence, just need some time.

[Zeebadee]

We should have impeached this lying, murdering president long ago under normal circumstances. But when you look at the cost/benefit analysis of impeachment in light of who would replace him, it clearly isn't worth the time, expense, and trouble. Perhaps the real lesson we've paid so much to learn is merely to give more consideration to the vice-presidential candidate before voting.

[Osborn F Enready]

Word Zee, I agree.

[PatrickHenry]

Knee-deep blood in the land of make-believe

It’s astonishing that members of Congress are either unaware George W. Bush and Dick Cheney lied the nation into war with Iraq, or they are aware of the fact and don’t care. A Congress grounded in reality would have unequivocally acknowledged the administration’s lies long ago and taken appropriate action -- almost certainly impeachment. If we say the pre-war lies don’t matter and the country should sweep them under the rug and only focus on the best way out of Iraq, what we’re really saying is that the truth itself doesn’t matter. If we say we should look away from the fact that thousands of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died for a lie, we’re saying the lost lives don’t matter, the war-injured and maimed don’t matter, America’s honor and integrity don’t matter.

If congress had any courage there would be impeachment. Since they are cowards, there isn't...

[Mozart1220]

The entire Republican party would have to be impeached. Rove and Cheney first, because Bush is just thier puppet for the most part.

But Rove is the dangerous one. He's pulling most of the strings, but is apparently untouchable.

Plausable deniability, that's the key.

[Clarence]

Quote by: PatrickHenry If congress had any courage there would be impeachment. Since they are cowards, there isn't...

people haven't been supporting impeachment. If we give em a window they'll maybe think it's time for a good ol circus. So they take the plunge and we can gleen only the useful attitudes and move from there. Then we stop the circus.

[bishop]

please... the democratic-controlled congress just handed bush another blank check for iraq - do you seriously think they're going to move to impeach him??? if these gutless wonders can't even bring an end to an unpopular war, there is an equally negligible chance that they'll impeach an unpopular president..

by the time the proceedings are over, it'll be november, 2007 and we'll have voted for another president..

and on that note - the two parties are primarily concerned with election season now, trumping all other national priorities..

[dilligras]

Quote by: Clarence to the skeptics. I need you to shoot holes so I can better explain my position and timing. In a nutshell, we need more gridlock. with the funding for our troops until sept in, we got time to responsibly request our elected officials turn their attention elswhere for just about a month. Then the election is conducted on different terms see? kinda will narrow the field

Let me see if I understand you correctly........we need to withold the money that our troops need on the front lines of the War on Terror, in order to better facilitate some purely politically motivated lefty manipulations?

Is that right?

If I have interpreted your ramblings accurately, then I would only ask, does your ideological perfidy know no bounds, that it would allow you to so callously use the very lives of those voluntarily sworn to their entirely righteous mission?

And do you also make specious claims of "support" for those troops whenever you feel your patriotism challenged by their true supporters?

Yes, I am most enamored of the rhetorical question.


As you were.

[Osborn F Enready]

Dilli, armed service members swear in to protect their nation from attack, and to defend their people.

The cause in Iraq is not righteous, nor is the SHAMEFUL job citizens have done to keep federal government within their LIMITS emplaced by the Constitution, to prevent wars built on false premise, without imminent threat.

As you were.

[Clarence]

the opposite dilli. with the funding for them secure thru sept, we can pursue the criminals without disrupting any real important legislation.

[Hmm]

Quote by: rmnunez Its always time to impeach, this just depends on the impeacher's 'leftism', conceptually its like a fuel gauge, when its observed leaning towards the left, impeachment is necessary, if you see it the other way, it never is.

Rmunez, your conceptions of politics are laughable.

[Klio]

It was time to impeach years ago. What more reason do you need than that he is attempting to privatize Iraqi oil for American oil companies?

And there are certainly plenty more reasons than that -- like destroying our country's Constitution, for just one.

Unless you like living under a dictator, then there's every reason to impeach.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Clarence the opposite dilli. with the funding for them secure thru sept, we can pursue the criminals without disrupting any real important legislation.

My apology for having misunderstood your meaning.

As for my own opinion, internal politics should never be intermingled with foreign diplomacy, for therein lie the seeds of our distruction by foreign agency.

I have seen many claims of "Bush Lies", but the only evidence of it was his calling the Minutemen vigilantes.

Every single charge of illegality has been refuted numerous times, and yet the MSM-brainwashed minions of moveon dot aaarrrrrgh persist in their fervent promulgation of the myth.

Do I sound bored yet?


Carry on.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Klio It was time to impeach years ago. What more reason do you need than that he is attempting to privatize Iraqi oil for American oil companies?

When we turned over Iraqi oil matters to the Iraqis in August of '03, only a few months after we ousted Saddam and his murdering thugs, the lefties reflexively and loudly complained that Iraq would never be made to pay any part of the cost of their regime change or reconstruction and that Americans were being unfairly used in a region that shouldn't matter to them.

Now that the Iraqis are showing their gratitude by showing preferrence to Coalition companies, the left is quick to lift its muzzle to the barely-shadowed moon, while it squeals a plaintive, high-pitched cry to rival that of Chris Matthews-- a high-pitched wailing that pierces the soul as it drifts forth over the misty moors of Democrat discontent.

"No blood for oil!" is the earnest bleating du jour, pulled blithely from the talking point pdf file of code pink's media darling traitors.


As you were.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Hmm Rmunez, your conceptions of politics are laughable.

But at least he addresses the issue at hand, n'est pas?