Impeach Now: or Face the End of Constitutional Democracy

[Occam]

Sorry, Milton, but you did just what I asked not be done. You gave wise-ass, superficial answers rather than rational arguments.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Because in order to manipulate the public opinion, and to give the illusion of government, Democrats have have become one with the Republican party in order to maintain their lock on power.

This is not a rational argument, merely a diatribe.

They require another party ( even if in name only ) to make it appear that there are still checks, and balances working in the system.

This doesn't address the question.

Who wants somebody in their inner circle blamed?

Again, this isn't a logical argument, and doesn't address the question.

OK, need proof? I offer the words you typed in the original post... "Nancy Pelosi said, "Impeachment is off the table." "

I can't see how you consider this statement proof. I was asking WHAT were the reasons on which that statement was based.

I hope subsequent posts are more germane.

Occam

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Occam Sorry, Milton, but you did just what I asked not be done. You gave wise-ass, superficial answers rather than rational arguments.

Well, you're free to infer whatever you like, but those are genuine opinions.

Quote by: Occam This is not a rational argument, merely a diatribe.

Says who?

Quote by: Occam I can't see how you consider this statement proof. I was asking WHAT were the reasons on which that statement was based.

OK, I should have said evidence to support my contentions, er, I mean "diatribes".

Quote by: Occam I hope subsequent posts are more germane.

I guess I'm attempting to speak across a philisophical divide.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: BobbyO But most are not. And Ron Paul is from Texas..

Yes, he is from Texas. And Ron Paul, MD is also a physician.

[The Decider]

Quote by: BobbyO This "no-bid" contract continues to be the stuff of fiction. Its real simple: In the early 90s, the millitary faced with declining budgets, decided it was wiser to contract out some non-combat logistical aspects to private companies. The contract would require the companies to provide such logistics and such when needed. Companies who bid were not bidding for any sort of immediate work, but rather that, should they be needed, they will be available as promised. Halliburton won the first bid, several years later lost the second, a several years later won the third. Halliburton won a bid and contract to provide logistics and support, which the Pentagon exercised in 2003. The bid had already taken place, and Halliburton had already won.

Bobby, could you post a source for this opinion? Thanks.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: The Decider Bobby, could you post a source for this opinion? Thanks.

Probably not. Its something which I have read in NEWSWEEK, TIME over the years. There was a was a nice summary of it in the WALL STREET JOURNAL a few years ago, but exactly when I could not tell you. The cutbacks in the early 90s were real and those solutions were made, but it was never front page stuff even back then.

[The Decider]

Quote by: BobbyO Probably not. Its something which I have read in NEWSWEEK, TIME over the years. There was a was a nice summary of it in the WALL STREET JOURNAL a few years ago, but exactly when I could not tell you. The cutbacks in the early 90s were real and those solutions were made, but it was never front page stuff even back then.

Newsweek, Time, and the WSJ all have websites. Let me know when you can back up your claim with a source. Until then, Halliburton won a no-bid contract for Iraq, as I originally said.

FBI Investigates Halliburton's No-Bid Contracts - UN Security Council - Global Policy Forum

[notworthabean]

Does anyone have a FACTUAL reason for believing that bush is headed torwards a dictatroship? I mean besides the fact the idioitc claim canadians get news we don't (Which I guess is true, I mean we don't get your weather forcasts, but besides that c'mon). You may dislike bush, but rest assured short of a nuclear attack on the coutnry there is little to no chance of him staying in office.

[Occam]

OK, now I understand it. Everyone here has a strong opinion for or against impeachment, but no one has any real, well thought out rationale for or against it other than listing a group of charges.

I agree that those charges seem worthwhile investigating, which would require an impeachment to decide if they were valid. However, the Democratic Congress seems to have chosen not to proceed with it. None of you know the rational arguments for that.

No one here has the vaguest idea of why they made that decision. You all just want to babble about off-topic things.

I didn't realize I was wasting my time here.

Occam

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Occam OK, now I understand it. Everyone here has a strong opinion for or against impeachment, but no one has any real, well thought out rationale for or against it other than listing a group of charges.

We didn't know your opinion was trump in this card game.


We impeach for crimes, not personal opinion. If there were crimes commited that justify that charges then I believe we should impeach.

Quote by: Occam I agree that those charges seem worthwhile investigating, which would require an impeachment to decide if they were valid. However, the Democratic Congress seems to have chosen not to proceed with it. None of you know the rational arguments for that.

I gave you a perfectly rational reason for this behavior. They are protecting their position of power.

Quote by: Occam No one here has the vaguest idea of why they made that decision. You all just want to babble about off-topic things.

Again, you just choose not to take a valid opinion as valid.

Quote by: Occam I didn't realize I was wasting my time here.

Well perhaps you are. If you're looking for a forum limited to people who think just like yourself there are plenty of other forums out ther that cater to that closed minded, group think type of atmosphere.