The biggest supporters of impeachment? Republicans, corporations, and neoliberals.

[brentspeak]

Why? Because as long as precious time, energy, and resources are directed away from the most pressing bread-and-butter issues of the day -- destructive "free" trade practices, modern-day monopolies, news agency consolidations, the lack of affordable health care -- and into doomed pie-in-the-sky pipe dreams like impeachment (for who? Bush or Cheney?), the more today's robber barons can chuckle to themselves, safe in the knowledge that their gravy train of economic exploitation will never be ground to a halt.

The gullible public will have been fooled once again - a nation of suckers.

[drm604]

1. We'd be gullible all right,

if we fell for this line of reasoning.

[elehhhhna]

6. truefact! well said.

[JuniperLea]

47. Thanks for nailing this before I even got here...

Where do these people come up with this dumbass crap?

Funny thing is, all of the "important" stuff cited is pure crap! These are all the made-up issues the RWNutJobs WANT us to focus on!

Honestly... where will it end?

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[JuniperLea]

52. Rather that than impeachment!

I'd so love to call you a name right now, but I'll leave that smarmy tactic to the likes of you.

[drm604]

54. You and I disagree slightly.

The things cited are important.

destructive "free" trade practices, modern-day monopolies, news agency consolidations, the lack of affordable health care

I do believe that these are all important issues. But they are not reasons to avoid impeachment.

[brentspeak]

63. Oh, yeah...the RW is just BEGGING for the public to focus on getting rid of NAFTA and monopolies

Republicans everywhere are dying to prevent Rupert Murdoch from taking over and consolidating the majority of our media outlets. And the GOP wants nothing more in life than to prevent Wal-Mart from destroying more of Main Street USA and to stop America-based factories from moving over to China. You sure can spot a "RWNutjob" a mile away, that's for certain.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[AndyA]

2. To allow Bush/Cheney/Co. to get away with it is the biggest mistake of all.

Few would say Bush/Cheney have done no wrong.

Few would say that no laws have been broken.

The Constitution directs Congress to impeach in these instances. It's not an option. By failing to do so, Congress becomes complicit in these activities. Every one of them: Conyers, Pelosi, all of them. And Senators could speak up in support of impeachment as well. But where are they?

We know the few who have said they would support impeachment, but what about all the others? Where do they stand, and if they are against it, why are they allowing crimes to knowingly go unpunished?

And what does that say about them? Can they be trusted to do the right thing? I think not.

[Lerkfish]

3. wow. Ok, I can understand WHY people want to impeach, but I'm rather

amazed at the bizarreness of the rationalizations those against impeachment will stoop.

[brentspeak]

4. So, logically, you fail to demonstrate what's so "bizarre" about my OP

The only "stooping", therefore, is your ad hominem.

[bobthedrummer]

7. You talk like a Michael Ledeen/Jack Abramoff clone when it come to impeachment imo.

Just wanted to let you know after reading your subjectline, have fun in your thread, logical one.

[brentspeak]

21. I do, huh? You read many quotes from Michael Ledeen which he denounces free trade practices?

Catch any interviews with Jack Abramoff condemning corporate monopolies, lately?

Uh, do you even know who Michael Ledeen and Jack Abramoff are?

[Lerkfish]

9. ermmm....ok

:eyes:

you just called anyone for impeachment a republican or a neocon, that's a rather large brush ad hominem, doncha think?

since you cannot or will not see your OP as a flame, then it must be flame-bait.

either way, my point still stands: I can understand the reasons why someone WANTS impeachment. But I do not understand nor accept as valid the various rationalizations AGAINST impeachment, from the point of view of WHY.

so, to be more direct: WHY do you oppose impeacment? and try to do it without insulting my intelligence or calling me a republican.

[brentspeak]

24. I said the BIGGEST supporters of impeachment are Repubs, CEOs, and neoliberals

Where did I say that "anyone" who wants impeachment is one of the above?

It's not me who's insulting your intelligence...

[Lerkfish]

31. LOL!

I'm guessing you never were on a debate team.

I also note you didn't answer the question.

[brentspeak]

38. You had a question?

Looked more like you were accusing me of the same "broad-brush" your "question" was guilty of.

[Lerkfish]

41. sure, no problem, I'll type it slowly for you.

w-h-y
d-o
y-o-u
o-p-p-o-s-e
i-m-p-e-a-c-h-m-e-n-t?

[driver8]

50. Ha Ha -- classic.

Lurking freepers might even get that...

[Lerkfish]

90. and still, he does not answer the very simple question.

apparently, I didn't type it quite slowly enough.

[Phredicles]

10. Well, you've sure not bothered to demonstrate that corporations & Rethugs

really do support impeachment. Nor do you explain what will be accomplished about any of these other causes by leaving The Decider & Co. unchallenged.

[brentspeak]

60. It's not that Republicans and the Powers That Be want Bush to be impeached

so much as they would want a long impeachment process to kill legislative reforms.

You're correct that I can't explain precisely how effective reform legislation can be enacted with Bush and Cheney in office. I do know, though, that not only can both not be impeached, but that there's not enough votes in the Senate to impeach even one of them. If it were possible to get both out of office, quickly, I'd be all for it. But it's not possible, and the best we can do is try to form veto-proof concensus on key legislation.

[merh]

65. Man who put the burrrrrrrr

in your saddle?

Impeachment is the right thing to do FOR THE NATION, FOR THE CONSTITUTION.

The party be damned, we need to try to restore the rule of law and prove to the POTUS and VPOTUS and all who follow them that they are not above the law and that they were for us.

Corny, but true.

Oh and go tell the other DLC skareeedy kats that Clinton lost the election in 2000 despite the fact that the repubs couldn't prove a crime. The process alone did him and the party in for the 2000, 2002, 2004 elections. If the dems sit tight and do nothing, if they continue in this spineless posoition about 2008, they will lose in 2008 - it may well be the year of the 3rd party because people are over the corruption. Folks want to see the dems stand up to the POTUS/VPOTUS. If they don't, they needed worry about '08.

[dionysus]

82. if you construe the word "stoop" as an ad hominem

you must have realllllllly thin skin

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. What "resources" are being directed away from the other issues?

I must've missed it.

As it is, our "leaders" seem to be doing everything they can to avoid impeachment.

[EFerrari]

25. I guess our invasion of Iran and assasination of Chavez is on hold.

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

8. LOL!

:rofl:

[H2O Man]

12. " n/t

[bobbolink]

15. We must be winning....

....they're laying awake nights thinking up this stuff....

:+

[Lerkfish]

16. exactly, and as I'm asking...WHY is it important to them to stop impeachment?

no, not the silly reasons, the REAL reasons.

[EFerrari]

27. Imho, because HRC doesn't want the I word in the air

just when it looks like she has a shot. It would undermine her very expensively purchased image.

But, I'm too cynical to live. Arf!

[Lerkfish]

29. well, you may be on to something, there. I note an intersect between two groups.

:wink:

[bobbolink]

67. You couldn't possibly more wrong!!

I mean really.

Look right up there, above you.

The OP states right there.... It's Republicans, corporations and neoliberals who WANT impeachment.

I'd go on, but I'm getting dizzy.

:silly:

[Lerkfish]

87. You're assuming the OP makes any sense, which I am not willing to assume

and you're assuming my comment is related to the OP, which it isn't.

I've been wrong before, but I CERTAINLY could possibly be more wrong, just watch:

Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin replaced the constitution with a script from one of their bad movies.


See? I can so be possibly more wrong.

:)

[H2O Man]

36. I'm finding the

level of insults in some of the anti-impeachment posts kind of funny.

[EFerrari]

40. I've been called a lot of things, and maybe, I've deserved them

but I've never been called a Republican or a corporation before! lol

[bobbolink]

70. Well, then it's about damned time, you corp, you!!!

Why, I never!

Go back to San Francisco where you belong, you...you... YOU NEOLIBERAL, YOU!

[EFerrari]

83. Too late!

lol

[Lerkfish]

42. well, I guess that's what I'm getting at: they smell not of rational discussion but desperation

and I cannot really figure out why. I'm guessing this is an emotional backlash against Cindy Sheehan?

it has really turned shrill today.

Now, I'm not opposed to someone actually making cogent arguements against impeachment, but honestly, that's not what's happening today.

[EFerrari]

44. Do you remember Cindy Sheehan T-shirt Night on DU?

It had all the energy and drama of Steinbeck set to music. :rofl:

[Lerkfish]

darn, I thought it was seat cushion night!

:)

[H2O Man]

49. It could be,

but I think folks have been pro-impeachment for a long time. I was saying that the Plame scandal should lead to VP Cheney's being impeached back in the spring of '04. (I enjoy saying, "Okay. I'm convinced now" on some DU threads, though I have been in favor of impeaching Cheney for years.)

I think it is something else. I think it's curious. I'm okay with everyone having the right to their own opinion. But it's odd to think of a democrat contacting their elected officials to say, "Please don't impeach Cheney."

[bobbolink]

71. Question, pleeeeeez......

What's a cogent?

I don't think we have one on DU, do we?



Is there a special forum for that?



:+

[Lerkfish]

85. Its a cold agent

heh

[bobbolink]

86. Ohhhh, OK... and we got Mike.

No gent, that one, tho....

:hi:

[bobbolink]

68. Twisted. Just.....twisted.

:+

[EFerrari]

18. You bet, sistah!

:toast:

[bobbolink]

11. I'm a corporation. Who knew......

:silly:

[EFerrari]

14. Me, too! Cool! Now I can get welfare, pay no taxes

and buy politicians!

[bobbolink]

17. Junkets! Don't forget the junkets!

Which Swiss bank do you favor?

:+

[Lerkfish]

20. I prefer the Cayman Islands, myself.

dahling

[EFerrari]

22. I'd love to play golf in Scotland!

lol

[bobbolink]

81. There's something about little balls and kilts that I'm not getting.....

:silly:




:+

[LSK]

13. short term yes, long term no

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. ROFLMAO

:rofl:

[GeorgeGist]

23. Ignored

[Richard Steele]

26. Uh huh. So all my friends and most DUers are Repubs and Corporations, eh?

[brentspeak]

32. "Most" DUers?

You personally know the opinions of "most" DUers?

(BTW, a "concern troll" is the opposite of what you think one is. Nice try, though.)

[Richard Steele]

43. The ones they POST, certainly. It's called "reading", and I recommend it highly. nm

[bobbolink]

72. Caught you by surprise, eh?

I think we need introductions all around.





:rofl:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. It's all a CONSPIRACY!!111!!!1!!! A conspiracy, I tells ya!!11lim(x->0)(sin x/x)11!!

ROVIAN DISTRACTION!!11!!11111!!

[Lerkfish]

33. you owe me a new monitor! I just spewed soda on this one!

:rofl:

[TahitiNut]

30. "If we try to impeach then the terrorists win!"

Where have I heard this 'logic' before? :eyes:

[EFerrari]

35. Why aren't you out shopping for America?

:)

[H2O Man]

37. If I could only

nominate a single post, this would be it. Thank you for making me laugh out loud.

[TahitiNut]

39. I'm honored and you're certainly welcome, my friend.

I have to earn my 'Nut' credentials. :silly:

[Swamp Rat]

46. LOLOL!!!!!!

I am really fucking pissed off right now, but at least you made me laugh. Thanks. :hug:

[bobbolink]

74. I'll see your fucking pissed off, and raise you a RIGHTEOUS RAGE!

I love that piece, Swampie! That is really a fine work of art!

:patriot:

[Swamp Rat]

75. thanks

more here:
www.swamp-rat.com

[bobbolink]

79. Good ones! The Guiliani one is priceless!

I hope he paid you well for that one.

:hi:

[bobbolink]

73. It's even worse than that..... the FOUNDERS were terrraists....

They're the ones who wrote impeachment into the damned constitution!







Don't try to go for logic.



It leads to an awful headache.




:+

[leftofthedial]

34. the pressing matters of the day? WTF?

They passed a piss-poor increase to the minimum wage that still leaves minimum wage FAR below a living wage and does nothing to address the grotesque concentration of wealth, income disparity and economic injustice in this country.

Other than that, they've been running for president, finding ever-more-foolish ways to be ineffective and outright supporting the neocon agenda.

Bah on you and your DLC propaganda.

[brentspeak]

45. My "DLC propaganda"??????

:wow: :wow:

Another one who doesn't even know the meaning of the terminology they're typing. :eyes:

The DLC: FOR "free-trade", FOR globalization.

Me (brentspeak):

Rant: I loathe the neo-liberals almost as much as I do neo-conservatives

The "enlightened" DLC/Progressive Policy Institute types who advocate "free trade" (ie. race to the bottom for cheap labor) but who are oh-so Starbucks-sipping, spandex-bicycle-pants-wearing, effete liberal when it comes to abortion and gay rights issues. The Richard Rubins, the Thomas Friedmans, the Robert Reichs -- heck even the Bill and Hillary Clintons (it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA and CAFTA into law, after all).

It's not like I'm really opposed to their social views (or to Starbucks -- I drink the stuff often, but I do laugh at non-bicyclists who wear bicycle pants); the problem is that by advertising themselves as champions on these liberal social issues, they have co-opted a good chunk of the Democratic party's bread-and-butter agenda; they've managed to fool people into thinking they're real Democrats, and ended up running the show (Friedman is a columnist, not a politician, but I wanted to use this opportunity to mention how much I loathe him anyway. Actually, he may be both a neo-lib and a neo-con.).

A real Democrat does not support policies which ship American jobs out of the country, lower wages of existing American jobs, and which puts us at the economic mercy of countries like China. Heck, even Jimmy Carter, as much as I admire him, fails the "true Democrat" test on the free-trade issue. FDR, Truman, and JFK must be rolling in their graves at the way the neo-libs have accumulated so much power within the Democratic party.

:rant:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2905835&mesg_id=2905835

[OzarkDem]

62. Well, dear, what was in your Wheaties this morning?

I'm sorry, but I don't get your logic on this one.

[brentspeak]

64. It means...

that the OP was accusing me of spreading DLC propaganda, while not being aware that I despise the DLC and everything it stands for.

[driver8]

48. The "suckers" are the ones who allow this administration to operate

with impunity.

[JuniperLea]

53. Best post on the thread...

This flamebait thread should be locked after your comment. Nuf said.

[LittleClarkie]

55. Esp. as we don't have the votes

A fine quagmire impeachement would be.

[EFerrari]

59. Psssssst -- this is how you GET the votes. n/t

[ThomWV]

56. And your solution is to let the criminals run free in the hopes they will spare us

Fuck that!

[merh]

57. Wrong, wrong, wrong. What a myth

Biggest non-supporters - DLCers afraid that elections might get sticky.

The gullible public isn't as stupid as you think. They recognized criminals and when they have been had. Damn shame you can't.

[debbierlus]

58. Couldn't disagree more - if we don't address the criminals, we will never address the crimes

Including all the policies that you listed as bread & butter...

Why do you think it became this way?

Because people stopped standing up for what is right & became complacent...Only THROUGH impeachment & a willingness to look at what at lead us to this very dark place in our history, can we make the changes you dream about....

A nation of suckers....no, a nation of complacent fools who fail to see that we are the government & we must act.

[yardwork]

61. Got a link for that declaration?

I think that if corporations were in favor of impeachment, the media would be drumming for it all day long.

The fact that the msm never mentions impeachment - except to mock the very idea - tells me that the corporations don't want it. And as the corporations feel, so feel their lapdogs, Republicans and neocons. I don't know what a "neoliberal" is.

[Forkboy]

66. Well,that went over like a fire in an orphanage.

Personally,I can't see how the "nation of suckers" ploy didn't work.That's gold,Jerry! Gold!

[Swamp Rat]

69. LOLOL!!!!!!

:rofl:

[Raksha]

76. We'd be REAL suckers if we believed this creative new rationalization

against impeachment...although I will give it points for originality.

[warren pease]

77. Well this certainly explains Conyers' bait and switch today...

along with Pelosi's steadfast refusal to deal with the massive criminality of the imperial executive and his memory-challenged pals in high places.

All this time I thought they were just wusses and back-stabbers and corporate tools and advocates of the same basic agenda as the GOP and useless money-grubbers and statists and suck-ups to power and...

But now I learn that they're the only thing stopping us suckers from making some kind of devil's bargain with republicans, corporations and neoliberals. Goddamn, that was close!

"fool me twice, shame on........... (10 or so long seconds while he composes himself)..................won't be fooled again! (and he goes out channeling The Who).


wp

[Solly Mack]

78. Answer: Where Bush polyps go to die, Alex.

Supply your own question

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

80. Uh,...huh? This post makes no sense to me, whatsoever.

:silly:

[mmonk]

84. Save it.

Those who support doing nothing support the status quo.

[MetaTrope]

88. Much preferable to let thousands more American troops die, and 10s of thousands more get wounded

defending Bush's freedom.

[lonestarnot]

89. Yeah that will work for them.