Will someone please explain this to me?

[BattyDem]

A court ruled months ago that BushCo was breaking the law with their wiretapping program, yet the program continued anyway. Now the Democrats are negotiating with this criminal administration about updating the FISA laws to accommodate the wiretapping.

This is an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE and it wouldn't take years to prove it! Even the most simple-minded American could understand it: the court ruled, BushCo ignored the ruling and continued to break the law ... GAME OVER!!! Why are the Dems negotiating with the WH? Why are they even discussing the possibility of changing the law to get BushCo off the hook? WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE?!?!?

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

[Mythsaje]

1. Shhh...

We have to give the Dems time to get in gear. We're being too hard on them. We have to be patient. Rome wasn't built (or is that burned down) in a day.

:angry:

Yeah, I'm also in WTF mode right now.

[hootinholler]

6. Wading through dry powder slows you down.

Makes 3 of us.

-Hoot

[hvn_nbr_2]

13. Yeah, you have to be careful walking thru all that dry powder.

Don't want to set off anything.

[liberal N proud]

2. Wish I knew!

Any other administration would be in jail for any one of the crimes this regime has committed. Yet they continue to move around and continue to commit more crimes against the constitution

[Sequoia]

3. I know what you mean, I'd like to know too.

Don't give in to Bush. Stop it, what's wrong with you knuckleheads!! Vote him down you jellyfish beings. Hell, grow a spine for crying out loud.

[Az]

4. The only way to indict the president is through impeachment

As long as they refuse to impeach there is no reason for them to obey anything even close to the law.

[hootinholler]

7. Not true. THe President can be indicted, tried and convicted without impeachment...

He's just still the President until impeached and convicted.

-Hoot

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

10. If you find a court that will do that. A group of 9/11 families tried to sue him

and the Judge threw the case out and cited that the pResident had Sovereign Immunity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity

[hootinholler]

30. That action would have about the same chance as obtaining a writ of mandamus against a President...

However, if the President randomly grabbed a SS pistol and shot someone on the handshake rope, it would be much more likely to happen. My point was small, only that conviction of a crime does not remove one from the office. I concur it is very unlikely to happen.

-Hoot

[Sarah Ibarruri]

16. What are the Dems waiting for? They should indict or impeach, either one,

They need to DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They're not doing anything to this monstrous administration!!!!!!!!!!!!! I demand to know WHY NOT!

[stillcool]

5. here's my explanation:

com·plic·it –choosing to be involved in an illegal or questionable act, esp. with others; having complicity.

com·plic·it- Associated with or participating in a questionable act or a crime; having complicity: newspapers complicit with the propaganda arm of a dictatorship.

[BattyDem]

8. Exactly!

Our entire government is run by criminals. We're screwed! :-(

[hootinholler]

31. Seriesly Screwn!

Might as well give up.

:evilgrin:

:hi:

-Hoot

[Individualist]

12. Correct answer!

[CanonRay]

9. Answer: We the People have completely lost control over our government.

[tom_paine]

35. I think we have a winner!

ding ding ding!

[Solly Mack]

11. America admit the President is a criminal thug?

admit as in hold him criminally accountable for his crimes...

Not going to happen - America's too much of a coward to do that...too afraid it would hurt America's image.



Admitting to a criminal President? bad for image! My goodness, then everyone would know and admitting it makes it true...whereas not admitting it means we can still pretend he isn't a thug.


Allowing said thug to get away with his crimes? good for image!
'Cause then we can still pretend he isn't a criminal wanna-be tyrant thug

To tell the truth about Bush would require admitting America has a criminal wanna-be tyrant thug as President. And since he continues to remain in office, telling the truth about Bush would make the rest of government seem pathetic and weak...useless...or complicit.

By pretending Bush is just a bad President, with the descriptive enabled by calling his crimes "mistakes", then America can pretend that everything happening (breaking the peace, torture, spying, etc.) is normal - that such "mistakes" by a "bad" President happen from time to time in a democracy. The illusion that our government is still working as it is supposed to work is the goal.

[paparush]

14. Gonzo on the front end :: SCOTUS on the backend. Bush has it wrapped up.

We are screwn.

[BuyingThyme]

15. Pelosi led us into war, now she's leading us into hell.

Get rid of her. I don't attack her because I don't like her, I attack her because she is extremely dangerous to our way of life. Please stop taking her shit.

[MonkeyFunk]

17. Pelosi led us into war?

Now that's just sick. She opposed the war.

This is Bush's war.

How the hell is it you want to blame Pelosi for this more than Bush?

[BuyingThyme]

18. Pelosi was the Democratic leader when we went to war.

She stayed silent for years until it was time to jump ahead of the 2006 election parade. Nobody should have expected her to maintain her stance after the election. She didn't. She gave Bush a blank check.

Nancy Pelosi paid for the war and she now owns it. She is the worst speaker ever, hands down. Stop giving her a pass. She is dangerous.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. That's just too idiotic to even argue with

[BuyingThyme]

20. Yes MonkeyFunk, I've noticed that facts almost always pose a problem for you.

[Richardo]

21. Well if you're saying it's a fact that Pelosi is a worse Speaker than Gingrich or Hastert,

...then I have problems with the 'facts' too.

[BuyingThyme]

22. When did they take the Constitution off the table and single-handedly destroy the Democratic Party?

[Richardo]

28. You're kidding right?

Gingrich did more to 'destroy' the Democratic party than anybody. His campaign 'manual' on how to marginalize Democrats is the main reason for his ascendancy. The only other contender would be Tom Delay, who of course was not Speaker.

[BuyingThyme]

44. If you go by the numbers/polls, Nancy is much more effective.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. LOL

except it's not a fact that Pelosi led us into this war.

George w. bush did.

[BuyingThyme]

45. You should probably follow somebody else.

[ronnykmarshall]

26. I've noticed a lot of this thrown around here ....

[BuyingThyme]

46. That's how some people respond to facts.

There's really no other way.

[greatauntoftriplets]

24. Worse than Newt Gingrich????

:wow:

[BuyingThyme]

50. Far, far worse.

[greatauntoftriplets]

23. Check your facts!!!

Dick Gephardt was Democratic leader in the House from 1989 to 2003. And he left Congress not too long after that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Gephardt

Now he did vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution, but don't blame Pelosi for it. She voted against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Voted_against

[Richardo]

27. .

:yourock:

[greatauntoftriplets]

29. Thank you, thank you....

Pelosi didn't become the House Democratic leader until AFTER Gephardt left after choosing not to run in the 2004 election. And it's so damn easy to search this stuff.

:wtf:

[BuyingThyme]

48. He chose not to run in 2004, but he left the post before that.

But by the way you worded your post, I see that you are trying to mislead people here.

Is there any particular reason you need to mislead people in order to get your point across? In other words, does your position require something other than the truth in order to sway particular audiences? In other words, why do your words not only lack truth, but lack the honesty which is necessary to communicate truth? Just wondering.

[ronnykmarshall]

33. G'on girl!

:yourock:

I'm sure the goats are able to pass over the bridge now.

[greatauntoftriplets]

34. And thanks to you too for the praise....

All it took to get that info was to type a search on "Dick Gephardt" and another one on "Congress + Iraq War Resolution vote". Wikipedia is my friend.

:)

[BuyingThyme]

51. If Wikipedia is your friend, why don't you invite him for an overnight.

Maybe that will give you enough time to read a couple paragraphs.

[BuyingThyme]

49. They are, but they're sheep.

[OzarkDem]

38. It doesn't change the fact

that Pelosi is doing a rotten job as Speaker. This bill is a perfect example.

[greatauntoftriplets]

39. Nor does it change the fact that Pelosi voted against the IWR.

I had not commented on the bill, having not read about it independently of DU.

[BuyingThyme]

43. My facts are correct; yours are random.

Thanks for playing.

[OzarkDem]

37. You're right

Nothin personal against Pelosi, I'm sure she has some job that she does well, House leadership isn't it.

[Hamlette]

32. what part of 67 votes do you not understand?

don't you get tired of posting nonsense here?

[BattyDem]

40. Tired of posting nonsense? WTF are you talking about?

Except for a comment in kpete's thread, I haven't said a fucking word about the matter until this post! Too bad if you can't handle a post that dares to question the ineffectiveness of our party leaders! I'm so sick of the "we can't do anything because we don't have the votes" crowd because in recent months, I have witnessed the GOP - the MINORITY PARTY - derail everything the Dems have tried to do. It's funny ... when the Dems were in the minority, they couldn't stop a damn thing that this administration was doing. And now, they can't even stop anything as the majority with a mandate from the American people!

So yes ... I'M PISSED! This "negotiation" should not even be happening! The program was ruled illegal by a federal court, yet BushCo continued with it. Our Congress is debating a bill which not only ignores that ruling, but seeks to make the unlawful activity legal. The bill violates the constitution and gives a free pass to a bunch of criminals. Our so-called representatives are no longer representing OUR interests! "A government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Remember that? Well, guess what? It's perishing. What part of that don't you understand?

I don't give a shit if they have 67 votes or not! The law either means something or it doesn't. The constitution either means something or it doesn't. They don't need 67 votes to impeach him, only to convict him. They can impeach and have the trial, which will expose BushCo's criminal activity to the entire country. The media cannot ignore an impeachment trial the way they ignore all of BushCo's other shit! If there's any common sense left in this country, the American people will DEMAND those 67 votes and good luck to anyone who supports this president after all the facts become known.

[lonestarnot]

42. I am fucking demanding it! I say fill Washington D.C. with standing room only!

[lonestarnot]

41. What part of impeachment hearing to get the 67 don't you understand?

[OzarkDem]

36. My sentiments exactly

The best thing Dems can do is force Bush to veto this bill or vote it down completely.

The current system works, leave it alone. Dems will never be able to make a case against the Bush WH if they vote for this.

Who's advising them on their political strategy these days, Rove himself?

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

[leftchick]

47. it is called COMPLICITY

simple as that.