Will Bush or Cheney be impeached?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priussoris @ Apr 24 2007, 12:26 PM) [snapback]429187[/snapback]</div>

Hey! I saw that sign in a demonstration here in Spokane!

 

Can't do just one, the whole lot has to go. Corrupution runs deep with this crew

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Apr 24 2007, 01:01 PM) [snapback]429220[/snapback]</div>

No worries here. I'm sure the next president, whichever party he's from, will be bad enough for me to blame for everything.

Mexico has had three honest presidents in its history. We've never had even one.

Benito Juarez, Lazaro Cardenas, and Emilio Gil, and I mainly include Gil because the family of his son were friends of mine. Yes, I've eaten lunch, on various occasions, with the son of a former President of Mexico.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 24 2007, 05:20 PM) [snapback]429361[/snapback]</div>

You are correct. It was from the Washington rallie

 

It's begun.

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politica...ach-cheney.html

The sooner we get rid of these crooks the better.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Apr 24 2007, 02:01 PM) [snapback]429315[/snapback]</div>

Simultaneous double impeachment leaving Pelosi to begin the steam cleaning.

 

It'll never happen; Obama might have been involved in a shady real estate deal.

Doesn't anyone see how the two are directly related?!?

 

You people are dreamers,just like the rest of the dim-O-rats.HO-HUM.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(charliem @ Apr 29 2007, 02:53 PM) [snapback]432171[/snapback]</div>

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Most of the country (remember the last election when the neocons had their butts handed to them on a silver platter?) is, too.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Apr 29 2007, 03:15 PM) [snapback]432174[/snapback]</div>

You think most of the country wants to go through an impeachment of one or both?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Apr 29 2007, 03:41 PM) [snapback]432183[/snapback]</div>

I didn't say that. In fact, I can say quite certainly that they don't (as much as I think this is the worst administration ever, neither do I). All I'm saying is that saying the word "liberal" won't cause the masses to bring out the torches and pitchforks anymore.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Apr 29 2007, 03:41 PM) [snapback]432183[/snapback]</div>

No. But polling shows that 65% of the country would like them both gone now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Apr 29 2007, 05:22 PM) [snapback]432207[/snapback]</div>

Really? 65% said they would like Bush and Cheney impeached? Show me the data!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Apr 25 2007, 07:56 AM) [snapback]429723[/snapback]</div>

When Alvaro Obregon was assassinated, not because he was elected in a rigged election, which Mexicans accepted as normal, but because his re-election violated the sacred Mexican principal of no re-election, Emilio Portes Gil was appointed as interim President until new elections could be held. He was chosen because all the political factions regarded him as an honest man.

He had a son, Domingo, who he wanted to follow in his political footsteps. "When I go out the front door, you come in the back door," Emilio told Domingo. But Domingo didn't want to have anything to do with politics, which he regarded (correctly) as a dirty business. He got an ordinary job and worked as an ordinary citizen. He married his second wife, Cornelia, in a civil marriage, because the Catholic Church does not recognize divorce, though the civil government does.

Domingo was about 70, and Connie about 60, when I met them. They lived the life of normal, lower-middle-class Mexicans, with their three sons, about two blocks from where I lived in Queretaro. You'd never know they were the son and daughter-in-law of a former president. I used to stop by and chat for an hour or two, very halting conversations at first, but very easy later on, as my Spanish improved. Connie was especially proud of the fact that Gil was the only president in Mexican history to recover any land back from the U.S. (a really tiny chunk -- I don't know the story behind it.)

I became friends with them on account of their cat, Lince (which means linx, though he wasn't a linx). A beautiful, fat, friendly cat.

 

The beauty of this selfish selfabsorbed country of ours, is that:

1. They may say they want impeachment today, but it won't last. This country would be hating the democrats for doing it well before the halfway point of the proceedings.

2. None of them are smart enough to know if there has even been an impeachable offense or not.

3. A majority probably couldn't tell you what impeachment means or identifiy that it means potentially removing the president from office.

America can't focus on anything long enough to impeach a president anymore.

Problems with the Democrats doing an impeachment:

1. They'd have to focus on something besides themselves for more than a minute at a time. Can you imagine Obama needing to focus on Bush for 4 or 5 minutes in a sitting?

2. I'm not sure any of them are qualified or smart enough to do the job. Maybe they could google it or look it up on wiki though.

3. They know that they can talk a big game, but the reality is that Bush has no impeachable offenses in which to proceed.

:lol: :lol:

For me... it's fun to see you all with your undies in a twist.

 

Democrats: Be Careful What You Wish For....

It's more advantagous for the Democrats in 2008 if the Bush administration is intact but crippled.

In a situation Pelosi became President, Democrats would incurr the burden of incumbancy.

 

We do not have coups in this country by having double impeachments.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Apr 29 2007, 04:15 PM) [snapback]432174[/snapback]</div>

But it was by the slimmest of margins. Maybe if enough seats had been won to override a presidential veto, the midterms might have really meant something. As it is, Bush has no fear of that happening, so he'll just veto anything the Democrat congress comes up with that he doesn't like and not worry about it.

But one thing's sure changed: I guess all those old 'signing statements' he attached to all the previous bills he signed (from the Rethug congress), which said that he reserved the right to ignore any part of the bill he didn't agree with, are a thing of the past.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 29 2007, 04:20 PM) [snapback]432239[/snapback]</div>

No? I guess we only do it the old fashioned way, by rigging elections. I say we start a new trend. After all, anything the repubs can do the dems can double. Double down, double up, just do double.