Madame Speaker - Resign!!!

[percussivemadness]

"I'm not unsympathetic to the concern people have -- I hear it all over the country. People here have said to me, 'Well, people on the left want the president to be impeached.' I hear it across the board across the country. It's not just the left," Pelosi said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/22/MNGH5R4QJO1.DTL

"Were the President to commit any thing so atrocious . . he would be impeached and convicted, as a majority of the states would be affected by his misdemeanor." - James Madison

End of argument...

Do your job Madame Speaker or resign. .

Peace

[jgraz]

1. No argument here

K&R :kick:

[Ian David]

2. But then again...

Breaking: Miers, Bush Chief of Staff to face contempt charges
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2926917

[info being]

16. Let us know when it actually fucking happens.

That's the point....lots of talk and no action.

[Ian David]

17. Yes, there IS that, too. n/t

[Auntie Bush]

130. Don't be impatient, greedy and ungrateful. Nancy is doing the best she can under

the circumstances...with such a small majority. Let's spend our precious time doing what we CA possibly do...like health care and drawing down the troops etc instead of going after bush et al to no avail. Let the people know how badly we need a 60+% majority in order to get our most important issues covered and passed. We can't do/accomplish much with all those fools in the administration and in congress ..get rid of them...then we can get to WORK! That's the time to criticize Nancy if she doesn't do what the left thinks is important.

[bluestateguy]

3. Because Steny Hoyer would be so much better.

Please.

[liberalnurse]

9. My thoughts too!

She knows how to pick our battles. Yes, the field of outrageous issues run amuck...but the talent of Nancy Pelosi keeps the Party in focus, making foundational battle choices as she looks down the road for the future. She is not a hot-headed, impulsive, attention seeker but rather a calculating "player". She is a gift.

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. He would not automatically become Speaker

The Democratic Caucus would have an internal election, where other candidates, such as Rahm Emmanuel could be elected.

[OneBlueSky]

4. by not impeaching, Congress in complicit in the BushCo crimes . . .

when our elected representatives refuse to honor their oath to preserve and protect the Constitution, where do we turn? . . . the "free press" is certainly no help . . .

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. So, is every single member of the House guilty, since no one has introduced articles of impeachment

against Bush? :shrug:

[liberalnurse]

5. I totally disagree.

I find her exceptionally savvy as our Speaker.

[madrchsod]

6. off with their heads!!

i could be wrong but it takes a lot more votes to impeach and convict than what the democrats have now. impeachment without conviction is an exercise in stupidity.

[PBass]

8. Impeachment without conviction worked just fine, for Nixon and Clinton.

Removal from office is not the only worthwhile outcome.

If history shows the Dems in the House did NOT move to impeach, I believe it will be a disgrace to the party.

[sharp_stick]

20. It didn't work at all for Clinton

the guy was acquitted for fucks sake, that means not guilty BTW

[PBass]

86. You better believe the impeachment effort worked on Clinton!!! Big time!

It absolutely gutted the last two years of Clinton's presidency.

It played a big role in why Gore lost in 2000 (for one thing, he couldn't use Clinton era as a campaign issue, or get Clinton to appear at campaign stops). By the same token, other races were effected (trickle down effect, backlash against Dems).

Impeaching Clinton will make future presidents think twice about having an affair while in office (about the only positive thing I can say about it... having an affair is a big security risk due to blackmail, etc). So impeachment is a deterrent for the future.

Impeachment helped Republican candidates win in 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections, IMO. The only reason it fizzled out in 2006 was that the "family values" issue was off the table for Republicans, due to all the sex scandals on their side, in 2005 and 2006.

Americans want strong leadership, not cautious "wind-socks" who are afraid to do the right thing because they're trying to cover their own ass. Bottom line, impeachment is the right thing to do. No amount of excuses, rationalizations, crass positioning simply to win future elections, or cynicism will change that. Do the right thing, and good things always flow from that.

[rocktivity]

44. DING DING DING! PBass, you're our grand prize winner!

...Impeachment without conviction worked just fine, for Nixon and Clinton...

When impeachable things are done, Congress is REQUIRED to investigate them. That is one of their job duties, not a "perk"!

:headbang:
rocknation

[MonkeyFunk]

64. No they're not

impeachment is optional. it is not a constitutional requirement.

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. That is why it is mentioed six times in the Constiution

and used fairly often until the jelly fish became cowards

By the way, do tell us, how did the presidency of walter mondale work in your alternate reality?

[rocktivity]

107. They're not required TO impeach. But they are required to INVESTIGATE.

:headbang:
rocknation

[MrMickeysMom]

68. That message HAS JUST be this week's mantra when calling Nancy Pelosi at...

... [phone]

Ring, ring... (it's taking many rings this week)
"(speaker) Nancy Pelosi's office"
Me: May I have the Speaker's comment line, please?"
"one moment, please"
(destination voice mail- "we welcome the opportunity to hear from you...la la la...")
Me: "Speaker Pelosi- This is one of the hustings here from the great state of _____. By the way- love your hair.... When impeachable things are done, Congress is REQUIRED to investigate them. Just keeping it real before we have to ask you to resign your ass. Buh-bye!"

(I guess you might drop the last sentiment, lest you be thought of as a punk ass husting...)

[bdamomma]

74. sometimes I think that this Congress does not know how much

power they have, they just have to use it against this maniac.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. DING< DING, DING

we have a winner!

[bdamomma]

80. I could include the people into that equation.

[truedelphi]

106. Thank you for that glimpse of reality

And with four of the Republican senators voting with the Dems last week - and a full thirty Republican senators upset about their election prospects unless Bush switches course - eventually it could be that Bush would resign

[LittleClarkie]

90. eh

never mind.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. Oh yeah, that would be real smart! NOT.

[hollywoodlib]

10. Time for All of Us To Take Action

See the full post at <a href="http://www.thehollywoodliberal.com">The Hollywood Liberal</a>

The time has come for each and every one of us to take action and stand up to Bush, Cheney, and their administration. I have just been on the phone with the offices of John Conyers, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Henry Waxman, who is my house representative, and both California Senators Dianne Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer. Several alarming stories have come out in the past couple of days which if you are a reader of The H.L., or any other progressive blog, you already know about. You can scan down the page for more information on the articles that I am about to pass on. Each and every one of us needs to get on the phone and call Conyers office, and your House representative and both Senators from your state and start making some noise about what Bush is apparently trying to do, which it appears to be declaring Martial Law at his own personal discretion. Here is the action we need to take.

1. John Conyers has said that if he gets 3 more members of congress to back him, he will begin Impeachment proceedings against Dick Cheney with or without Speaker of The House Nancy Pelosi. Call Congressman Conyers at [phone] and demand that he begin impeachment proceeding immediately. Call your own Congressional representative. You can dial the U.S. Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 (You can also reach your Senators at this same number.) ask for the office of your congressman, tell them that you want them to sign on with Conyers to back impeachment.

[ORDagnabbit]

11. Millionaire Pelosi has a vested interest in keeping the war monger in power. n/t

[qazplm]

25. ok, I'll bite

what's her "vested interest" in keeping him in power?

[ORDagnabbit]

61. shes scared of losing her power...she wont fight him with actions just words...where its safe

Her interest is keeping bush in power so she can "fight" with him thru the elections in 08


3 good links to read.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1126

http://www.fogcityjournal.com/news_in_brief/np_code_pink_supplemental_rally_070322.shtml


http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles/2007/democrats_corporate_lobbyists.php

[AntiFascist]

65. War with Iran n/t

[liberalnurse]

26. Please present you

validated evidence. It's so easy to throw mud with pre-conceived notions seasoned with envy.

[onenote]

14. "Do your job"

Is it Pelosi's job to call for a vote on impeachment that could lose? Don't think so.

[SaveElmer]

15. You win..."The Dumb idea of the Day Award"...nt

[jgraz]

21. Sorry, that's still going to "Vote for Hillary"

Winna and Still Champeen!!!

[percussivemadness]

24. and you win

the "i`m afraid of President Bush award"

Imagine if Feingold was speaker of the house.

Pelosi was elected on an anti-war majority...She has failed to deliver on her mandate. I don`t personally think she is a bad person, but some people just don`t cut it.

The overwhelming majority of people want George Bush and Dick Cheney impeached. Thats the point you fail to grasp. It is not up to Pelosi to do what she wants, it is up to Pelosi to represent the will of the people.

She has flat out stated, "I don`t care what the people want"....

Therefore, she needs to resign...

Peace

[MonkeyFunk]

27. While there's no requirement

that the speaker of the House be a member of the House, traditionally, that has always been the case.

It's exceedingly unlikey they'd choose Senator Feingold as the new speaker.

[percussivemadness]

30. sadly I agree with you

But wouldn`t it be a fine choice :)

Peace

[MonkeyFunk]

32. No

it would be idiotic for the House to select a Senator as their speaker.

[percussivemadness]

38. I wasn`t asking about the senator

I was asking about the man, his character and his principles.

peace

[MonkeyFunk]

41. You proposed him as speaker of the House

indicating that you don't know the difference between the House and the Senate.

But given the raw idiocy of the original post, I'm not surprised.

[MonkeyFunk]

29. The majority of Americans do NOT

want Bush impeached.

People just make shit up.

[percussivemadness]

35. oh dear, now you are just making stuff up

Much of US favors Bush impeachment: poll

The survey by the American Research Group found that 45 percent support the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Bush, with 46 percent opposed, and a 54-40 split in favor when it comes to Cheney.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070706/pl_afp/uspoliticsbush

As we know that nearly 84% of the American people have had enough, allowing for the "skewering" of the Yahoo poll, we can safely deduce that the majority of American`s want Bush impeached.

Peace

[MonkeyFunk]

45. 45%

is not a majority.

[tammywammy]

73. ....

:rofl: :)

[miceelf]

92. Not a majority

And certainly not an "overwhelming" one.

WTF we should be calling for Dems to fall on their swords at this point, I dunno.

[jgraz]

36. Lucky for us the Constitution isn't run by opinion polls

Regardless of how often posters on this board pretend it to be...

Let's just say for argument's sake that you're right (even though you aren't): that the majority of Americans do not favor impeachment. Are we to conclude from this that the minute the polls swing to favor impeachment you'll be walking the street corners wearing an "Impeach the Fuckers" sandwich board?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess "no".

[MonkeyFunk]

47. I never argued that

I merely refuted the claim that the majority of americans support impeaching Bush.

[jgraz]

49. But to what end?

Is it just a desire to get the details right, or is it a veiled (or not so veiled) dismissal of those who favor *'s removal from office?

[MonkeyFunk]

51. To what end?

to be truthful. To be honest. To let people know what the real facts are.

Having a discussion based on bad facts isn't productive.

good lord, now when somebody posts a simple factual correction, their motives are questioned?!

[jgraz]

84. I wouldn't question your motives if your "corrections" weren't so disingenuous

To say that the majority of Americans are against impeachment is shading the truth at best. If you're really a stickler for TRUTH, why not actually use it? The TRUTH is that a majority of Americans favor impeaching Cheney and Americans are evenly divided (accounting for the margin of error) on impeaching Bush.

That's the truth. That's being honest. Once you start including those details then maybe we can have a discusion based on facts.

[miceelf]

94. But you were dishonest

when claiming that an "overwhelming majority" wanted Bush impeached.

[jgraz]

96. When in hell did I say that?

Point that out and I'll happily say that I was wrong wrong wrong.

[miceelf]

98. Sorry

It was percussivemadness who said that.

You just yelled MonkeyFunk for correcting him/her.

[jgraz]

102. The problem was he didn't correct her

He asserted that a majority does NOT support impeaching Bush. While technically true, the assertion amounts to cherry-picking of the latest poll results.

[miceelf]

122. Geez

How is pointing out a fact cherry picking?

She made a claim. The claim was false. The falseness of the claim was pointed out.

"Cherry picking" my butt. There is NO poll with majority support for impeaching Bush. You guys are the ones cherry picking. There was no mention of polls at all until support for impeaching Cheney hit 50.

[jgraz]

127. Geez yourself

How is pointing out a fact cherry picking?

Um...you do understand how cherry picking works, don't you? You point out a "fact", but you leave out all the qualifying evidence. In this case it wasn't even a fact, it was a weasel-phrase which implied that the majority opposes impeachment. They don't

She made a claim. The claim was false. The falseness of the claim was pointed out.

Nope, the false claim was met with another false claim. Please try to keep up.

"Cherry picking" my butt. There is NO poll with majority support for impeaching Bush. You guys are the ones cherry picking. There was no mention of polls at all until support for impeaching Cheney hit 50.

What you do with your butt is your own business. The fact that over 50% of the public wants the VP impeached with ZERO support from Democratic leaders or the media is HUGH!!!!111 I would hazard a guess that this kind of grass-roots support for impeaching a sitting President (45%) and Veep (54%) is unprecedented.

[miceelf]

132. Who's Hugh?

In any case, you're a case in point. One fact that supports your POV is "HUGH." But a fact that doesn't is "cherry picking"

And you're also painting his words in the least favorable light and twisting them to mean something that wasn't intended.

"the majority does not want impeachment" can either mean that the majority opposes impeachment (your interpretation of his phrase) or that there is not a majority that wants impeachment (the likely intended meaning).

But of course you don't go after the clearly unambiguously false claim.

[jgraz]

133. You're missing a bit of DU history here

Hang out for a few more months. You'll eventually pick up on the "HUGH" joke and the Tao of Monkeyfunk.

[MonkeyFunk]

109. because

the statement I was refuting said "The overwhelming majority of people want George Bush and Dick Cheney impeached."

That is untrue, and the real facts ARE relevant.

What's disingenuous about it? The majority of Americans do NOT want Bush impeached, and a slight majority want Cheney impeached.

The argument is made that the congress is blatantly ignoring the will of the people, and that simply isn't true.

I'm sorry the facts are counter to your desires, but they remain facts nonetheless, and I think it's ridiculous to chide me for being correct.

[jgraz]

112. It's called cherry-picking

You may have heard that it caused a bit of a problem in the intelligence community a few years back...

[MonkeyFunk]

114. You're being ridiculous

it's not cherrypicking. Somebody made a blatantly false assertion, and I corrected it.

Get over it.

[jgraz]

115. You corrected it with a technically true but misleading assertion

Which you seem to do quite a bit.

[MonkeyFunk]

116. you're being more ridiculous

than I thought was possible.

a technicality?!

Assertion: "The overwhelming majority of people want George Bush and Dick Cheney impeached."

Truth: One poll shows 45% support for impeaching Bush. Another shows 36% support.

What is misleading about my correction?

If, hypothetically, I had asserted that "a very small minority of people want George Bush impeached" would you correct me? Would your correction be misleading?

You're just wrong on this.

[jgraz]

117. Here again, we have cherry picking and spin

"Assertion: "The overwhelming majority of people want George Bush and Dick Cheney impeached."

That was clearly wrong, as was your "correction" that the majority of Americans do NOT want Bush impeached. The last poll was a statistical tie, which means that there is NOT a majority of Americans who are against Bush's impeachment.

If you had simply corrected the post without providing your own misleading statement, I'd have had no problem with it.


Truth: One poll shows 45% support for impeaching Bush. Another shows 36% support.

The first poll shows a statistical split (45 for, 46 against). Your insistence on using the 45% figure makes it seem that you're trying to leave the impression that 55% are against impeachment.

As for the second poll, that one either asks about impeachment and removal or impeachment of both Bush and Cheney, I can't remember which. Either way, trying to equate the results with a straight-up question on impeachment is statistically unsound and misleading.


These aren't simple nits. The polling shows that the Democrats would likely not pay a political price for impeaching Bush, while your interpretations continue to suggest the opposite. That's important when we have so many of our congresscritters afraid to stand up and fulfill their oath of office.

[MonkeyFunk]

118. You're spending way too much energy on this

somebody said something wrong. I corrected him. End of story.

You don't like the facts, so you attack me. It's childish.

[jgraz]

119. You "correct", I "attack"

Noooo, you don't spin the facts at all... :eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

120. my 'correction'

was correct. That's the difference.

I'm as stubborn as you are ridiculous, so we can carry this on all night, if you'd like.

[jgraz]

128. Really. Is there a majority in this country who oppose impeaching Bush?

Cuz that's what you said. "The majority of Americans do NOT want Bush impeached." It's like three inches above this post -- check it out.

Now show me a recent poll that supports your claim. I'll happily shut up once you do.

[miceelf]

124. !!

But you're ignoring the facts. There is not a majority of Americans who want Bush impeached. Deal with it.

[jgraz]

126. Read the post again

The statement was not "There is not a majority of Americans who want Bush impeached" it was "The majority of Americans do NOT want Bush impeached" (my italics). Do you really not see the difference? The first statement is supported by the data, the second is at odds with the data.

What I'd really like to see is a question like: "Would you support a member of Congress who voted to impeach this president?" My guess is that we'd see about, oh, 24% respond NO to that.

[MsMagnificent]

121. He caught you red-handed

so you now pout, still dissemble, and then display some nerve calling anyone else childish!

For someone 'spending way too much energy on this', strange that he's posted on this board less than you have. :crazy:

[jgraz]

129. Don't you know? Disagreeing with monkeyfunk == being childish

It's in the DU rules somewhere.

[miceelf]

123. HOW

How is it misleading?

And how is pointing out that EVERY SINGLE POLL DONE shows no majority support for impeaching Bush "cherry picking"?

DO you know what "cherry picking actually means?

[jgraz]

125. I know exactly what cherry picking means

And saying that one poll shows 45% in favor while another shows 36% in favor is exactly that. This glosses over the facts that a) the 45% was actually a 45-to-46 statistical tie and b) that the alleged 36% was not even a response to the same question! Ok, maybe that's just lying, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Also, a statement like "the majority of Americans do NOT want Bush impeached" says very clearly that there is a majority in this country who oppose impeachment. That is flat-out wrong. If someone were interested in a simple correction, they might have said something like "there is NO overwhelming majority in favor of impeachment."

See how easy that is?

[liberalnurse]

40. I'm in that category as well.

I prefer to get a Democratic President who can repair this Nation. Impeachement is only an instant gratification without real relief from the abuse and legislative crimes of the past 7 years.

[PBass]

48. Impeachment is standing up for the law, standing up for oversight.

It's not "instant gratification" in fact that is silly and even offensive.

BUSH BROKE THE LAW. He continues to break the law. He admitted it! He's spying on Americans without a warrant, tapping phones and reading emails. He "says" that he only spies on terrorists, but I'd bet any amount of money he's spying on political enemies. Impeachment hearings would be one way for Congress to find out WHO he's spying on, and why. I'd bet anything that journalists and elected Democrats are being spied on, for political purposes, not for security reasons.

[liberalnurse]

60. I'll be okay with him

legally getting away with things for now........Really. I want to repair the Tsunami of abuse this administration has done. To seek Impeachment, an instant gratification fix, well that does not repair anything and American are suffering. I like the principle and indeed the qualifications are there...but I won't risk our NOT getting a Democratic President in 08 for a chance Impeachment, a poor gamble action at that.

[RFKJr4PRES]

70. How about we Impeach AND find a president who can repair the nation?

Impeachment is of course the first step to repairing the nation, not to mention stopping Bush before he kills again.

Then we get a candidate who truly can repair the nation, by shifting our priorities from attacking innocent nations to taking care of people in this country.
(hint: ANY candidate currently interested in holding Iran accountable should be eliminated)

[Stinky The Clown]

42. We've had this discussion before .....

The number of Americans who support impeachment just barely fails to be a majority. 45% want it.

A true majority want Darth gone. 54%.

Just sayin' .....

[SaveElmer]

52. Not only is there not a majority...

But I doubt even those that say they do want it put it high on their priority list...

It is going to take an overwhelming and enthusiastic majority to begin to even think about it...

As it stands now, and as it is likely to stay, there is no hue and cry for impeachment, and to attempt to do it under these circumstances would be political suicide for the Democratic Party

[jgraz]

54. Which is more than enough to be getting on with

Ok, let's follow the polls: impeach Cheney now and then wait until that extra percentage point pokes its head above the margin of error.

[MonkeyFunk]

59. You're the only one

saying that the poll numbers should dictate what action to take.

Nobody else here is.

[Stinky The Clown]

67. Self-delete

I answered the wrong post.

Mea culpa

[blondeatlast]

37. Um--SENATOR Feingold isn't in the House. Just sayin'

:eyes:

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blondeatlast]

43. I won't eat that stuff--too gamy for me. But I like to play with 'em

before the kill.

It appears to be a very good day for that--GD is rife with 'em too.

[liberalnurse]

56. My cat "Tommy" does that too.

:hi: :dem:

[rucky]

18. I don't know how she can hold one of the most liberal districts in the US

and not get a serious challenger next election, if she doesn't start talking impeachment soon.

[cascadiance]

19. It's not just the left Nancy. People like Paul Craig Roberts are asking for it too!

Are you calling a former Reagan administration official part of "the left" (or to the left of yourself?!!)

I don't think that the core Dem base wants to hear that!

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberalnurse]

Me too....

but I'm not too tired to run them over them with my effective arguments. It sure does make them work harder.O8)

[liberalnurse]

31. Me too....

but I'm not too tired to run them over them with my effective arguments. It sure does make them work harder.O8)

[percussivemadness]

39. make an effective argument then

that doesn`t require ignoring the constitution.

peace

[liberalnurse]

63. Provide evidence.....

otherwise, it's just speculation and has no value....like lettuce.

[percussivemadness]

72. evidence of high crimes and misdemeanours?

you have to be kidding me right?????

peace

[DaveinMD]

23. silly

our Speaker is doing a great job.

[AndyA]

33. You can say what you want to about Nancy.

She's either very smart and savvy, or she's in bed with the crooks. But the fact remains, part of her job is to provide oversight of the Executive Branch, which the Dems are doing to some degree with the investigations currently underway.

But there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence and documentation that prove Bush/Cheney have, indeed, committed high crimes and misdemeanors while in office. And Pelosi is hearing impeachment loud and clear from both sides, apparently.

Yet she is still saying impeachment is off the table.

One has to wonder why she would continue to say that. To do nothing makes her and this Congress complicit in the crimes. So what's the harm in saying all options are on the table? I mean, really, what does she need to see to move her in that direction? They've pretty much done almost everything Nixon did to cover his back side.

Come on, Nancy, impeachment is part of YOUR JOB. DO IT. Or they'll take you down with them.

[partylessinOhio]

46. Absolutely, Pelosi needs to go - resign and step out of the way.

Madame Squeaker has had more photo ops with * than Denny Hastert! She has taken on the job of protecting him from the voters. She was not elected speaker to run interference for Bush. If she doesn't know what her job is, she doesn't deserve to stay on the taxpayer's payroll.

If she had any contempt for this idiot, she would not let him in her personal space putting his hands on her.

Somehow she became confused, she refuses to consider impeachment, she has said, "George is a lovely man." Madame needs to go immediately.

[percussivemadness]

53. Round of Applause :)

peace

[liberalnurse]

62. Not from me................

:kick:

[liberalnurse]

55. *bush is our pResident

and she has to try and make a difference. Too bad you can't look outside the box on this. One needs to look at history to see that you can't close off negotiations like a scorned lover....Thats exactly what *bush has done with evey nation he "personally dislikes"......

Think about that for a while.

Look at the damage he has done. Pelosi is keeping the cards on the table despite the fact *bush can't stand her. That is leadership.

[percussivemadness]

58. leadership is not

1) Siding with Bush and Cheney.

2) Appeasing Bush and Cheney.

3) Ignoring the will of the electorate.

That is called appeasement.

I guess you would have called Neville Chamberlain a great leader as well wouldn`t you?

Peace

[liberalnurse]

66. I don't have time

to teach you the rules of political engagement........May I suggest you pick a local activist group and go into your Statehouse to lobby issues of your passion for that group to learn how things work.

[percussivemadness]

71. cos you`re soooo busy

meanwhile....the great US of A lies dying, her constitution in shreds and a mass murderer and his henchmen being protected by the person elected to bring an end to this. How many times do you need to hear it before you get it...

THIS IS NOT ABOUT PELOSI AND POLITICAL CONVENIENCE, THIS IS ABOUT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION DEMANDS....A GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND PELOSI HAS SWORN TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH SHE IS FAILING TO DO!!!!!!

i do notice, you aren`t too busy to be patronising and overbearing, whilst ironically at the same time, somewhat irrelevant.

keep posting those fantastic one liners,

peace

[liberalnurse]

77. It's obvious you are here just

to flame or your just a rookie at politics. None the less....you are insignificant. We are just humoring you ya know.......so since you have drawn the line in the sand, you may just get a spiritual awakening.

[percussivemadness]

82. lol

I am insignificant? Lol, you need to do your research. Are seriously telling me that We Will Not Be Silenced is insignificant? Are you seriously telling me that www.nolaaid.com is insignificant?

Here`s something for you to consider, when you point a finger, 3 are pointing back at you.

Peace

[Stinky The Clown]

69. Those pictures are meaningless

You in the innuendo bidniss?

[defendandprotect]

111. We need to increase pressures on Pelosi and challenge this buddy-buddy relationship with fascism --

However, feelings of Democrats are certainly not being shouted out by MSM --
In fact, her pictures with Bush probably make Bush look better - !!!!

What I found on Nancy is she/family are worth about $10million + . . .
varied investments --

Barbara Mikulski let out -- at a hearing -- that Diane Feinstein/or husband is invested in war stuff -- $5 million?

I doubt Pelosi would resign -- nor is CA ready to "recall" her???
But, I think we should be making clear to other Democrats that Pelosi and Reid are slo-mo and should go -- not up to job -- or not interested in moving in direction public is advocating.

The world wants an end to this war in Iraq -- it's more than Americans -- more than Democrats --
and the longer we're propping up this war with $ the more chance we'll find ourselves in IRAN . . .
probably with Great Britain -- our perpetual ally in "illegal" wars --

[Old and In the Way]

50. You do realize that she will be the last person to sign on to an impeachment bill, right?

It would become the Republican talking point to spin the entire process as Pelosi's bid to grab power; as stupid as we know that to be, I can see the entire MSM framing the entire debate on that question. I'd prefer that she not take a position, but let the rest of Congress drive this decision.

[partylessinOhio]

57. Madame Squeaker is BLOCKING any movement to impeach her boy.

Don't you get it? She needs to step out of the way and let the Congress follow the Constitution. Her boy merits impeachment by his very own actions. Madame has no right to protect *.

She has no right to take a manditory Constitutional action off the table. NONE!

[ISUGRADIA]

75. Impeachment is not a mandatory action

[Old and In the Way]

87. When she starts seeing rank and file members of the House signing on,

indicating that she has a majority to get it passed, I'm sure that it will be back on the table. I'm all for impeachment, but I want it done in such a way that the Speaker's motives are not impugned.

[lojasmo]

79. It will never pass in senate.

At this point, I am still opposed to impeachment for that reason.

[percussivemadness]

81. The Double Standard of some DUERS is simply mind blowing

For the last 7 years, page after page has been written condemning Bush`s dismantling of the Constitution. Lying to go to war, the Patriot Act, Illegal Wiretapping and so on.

Yet, some of these very same people, who claim to love their country, who claim to want to uphold the Constitution, react with grotesque hypocrisy when it is one of their own (Pelosi) who refuses to enforce the constitution. No they say, it will be too difficult. It isn`t the right time. We`ll win in 2008 and correct it then. How many troops are going to die between now and 2008? How many more Iraqis are going to die between now and 2008? How many more Americans will lose their homes because of a bunkum economic theory that had disastrous results in the UK (trickle down economics doesn`t work)? How many more kids are going to suffer because there is no comprehensive health care policy in this country? How many more people are going to lose their jobs between now and 2008? Can one of you hypocrites tell me the answer to this simple question. After 7 years of pure hell, when exactly is the right time?

Some of the posts on this thread alone are a glaring example of why Bush has retained power, why he has been able to get away with what he has. Reading through this thread I suddenly get it. They were never worried about impeachment, why, because of every ridiculous excuse made on this thread. The constitution clearly states what needs to be done. Every single DUER who rationalises otherwise, you should go back and delete every post you have ever made condemning Bush for trampling on the constitution, because whether you like to admit it or not, you are guilty of the exact same thing.

The founding fathers are turning in their graves as they see this great country torn to shreds by the Neocons and their left wing enablers.

Peace

[liberalnurse]

83. At least DU'er have Standards.

I fail to see you with any Standards at all by your limited posting resume' at the moment. Maybe time will show otherwise. It also appears you don't include yourself as a DU'er.:nopity:

[percussivemadness]

85. don`t twist my words

I didn`t say DUERS do not have standards, i said some DUERS have a double standard, that is entirely different.

peace

[liberalnurse]

88. But, but, ...but...

ahahah....wait a minute...oh, don't twist my words....OOPS!

HaHashaHaha

Try to clean it up ...go ahead...try.

This thread has officially been dropped like an anchor at sea.

Bye, Bye........... :hi:

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bigmonkey]

95. I don't agree that it's mandatory according to the rules.

This is a political process, not a procedural one. The repubs tried to assert that they had no choice in impeaching Clinton, and I think that was a convenient lie for them that they hid behind - "We have no choice but to investigate his private life!"

Politically, I am convinced that it's the right thing to do. Critics of impeachment fail to admit or even consider that it is an investigative process, and one with teeth, that itself will reveal much. I'm very tired of this kind of calculation beforehand when the case hasn't been looked into with full force. You can't call for ironclad proof as a prerequisite for an investigation - nothing would ever be investigated.

[rinsd]

99. self delete

[liberalnurse]

105. Very good observation........

Sharp DU'er...I love this Board! :yourock: :applause:

[zulchzulu]

89. This really bad idea based on misinformation brought to you by...

...people who don't realize that Pelosi would be seen as trying to grab the Presidency by impeaching both Bush and Cheney...thus derailing the impeachment process.

:crazy:

[percussivemadness]

93. sorry thats just an excuse

to rationalise your apathy.

the issue is, not whether Pelosi is trying to make a power grab, its whether she has the guts to stop Bush and Cheney solidifying their power through signing statements.

the issue is not whether Pelosi is making a power grab, the issue is whether America is a nation of laws, and when it can be proven without any shadow of a doubt that Bush and Cheney have committed high crimes, by not holding them accountable, by not impeaching them, you are saying to the world at large, we are not a democracy, we do not believe Bush and Cheney have done anything wrong and the American people support the President and Vice President.

That is the message you are sending to the world by not impeaching.

peace

[zulchzulu]

97. My apathy? F&*k you, assh%^e

I have a grasp of reality and I also have written a song called "Impeach The President":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3chpy0CWyI8

[percussivemadness]

100. wow...you people like to abuse anyone who disagrees with you

but I`m not going to get in a pissing contest with you over writing songs and putting up videos on you tube.

peace

[zulchzulu]

101. Did you see what the name of the song is?

It kind of pertains to the subject...

[Heath Hatcher]

104. As much as I would love to seen Bush/Cheney get impeached

I know it just won't happen since the votes aren't there and public approval for this is severely low. The OP calling for the Speaker to resign is just another person living in fantasyland. Pelosi is doing a decent job in there for Speaker and trying to end the war, that all I need is for her to resign and get replaced by someone putrid and horrible like Rahm Emanuel for example. Yes were suppose to uphold the constitution but of offense but the constitution dosen't mean squat when you don't have the 67 votes in the Senate or anytype of vote to impeach the prez and VP it's as simple as that, the faster y'all get this through your head the better. Now i'm done with this thread and i'm done from this board for a while, i've only been here a couple of months and all this place has been is nothing but a breeding ground for total hate threads towards the party and I won't stand for it. Unlike most people I have something called loyality towards the party and even when I don't get what I want i'm gonna stand behind them 100 percent because I love politics and I love the Democratic Party.

Now i'm gone here, PM me when realism strikes this board and the fantisies end or when the ultra hate here ends.

Till then good-bye, sad this all couldn't work out better

If we should be asking anyone to resign it should be Harry Reid from the Senate.

[liberalnurse]

103. "Wow, You People"......you are targeting DU'ers again....

...your denial is as empty as a *bush promise.

Another item of interest I have noticed is that you are the source of this pissing match.

Target, "DU'er". as evidence of "You people"....Ross Perot could share some experience with that term.

Your track record speaks volumes.

What do you want on your Tombstone?

[percussivemadness]

113. my track record

you have ignored my track record, twisted my words and then advocated swear words and abuse.

Here is our track record

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB_Jbr8R8XU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZVDF7OaRpQ

http://www.nolaaid.com

Whats your again? Apart from making shit up and then refusing to answer questions or apologise when you have been shown up.

Unbelievable

Peace

[Divine Discontent]

108. well,

welcome to the world of internet messaging, chat, blogs.. lol.. some here sound like they've ate their young. many many many people complain about them - you're not the first. I just learn to use the ignore button for people that sound so outlandish and supportive of the GOP talking points, or are verbally abusive. That ignore feature is a GREAT invention. lol
good thread discussion. til the end of Sept I support Pelosi staying right where she's at, although I feel they are being too fair and honest with B*sh who is a maniacal and walking version of a "quagmire". Impeachment should have occurred under the GOP rule, but they're bigger cowards by far than our middle of the road Dems. Thank God for people like Feingold, Kucinich, Conyers, and good ol' Maxine!

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<--- top '08 items & antib*sh stickers!

[tandem5]

110. I'll extend that to all members of congress, house and senate:

Your branch of government is being shutdown piece by piece and all you care about is your own neck? I don't care about explanations of strategy, of portraying the "right image." Its time to represent and protect our country's fundamental tenets because they are being overtly disassembled. I say overt because there is no doubt, if our country survives this, there will be a very large chapter on this dark period in our history books. So let me appeal to your ego, since most of you are so fond of statues and schools with your names engraved in bold print: How will you be immortalized in that thick dusty history book?

[Vidar]

131. Couldn't agree more.