impeachment hearings this friday

[Charles_Main]

That's why it's not going to come to that. But don't you think the American people should know what really happened before the November elections?

Actually I think you just made the most valid argument for it I have heard.

As of right now, you think I'm a conspiracy theorist, and meanwhile you can't tell when your government is conspiring against you.

No I am well aware of the Evils of my government, the only difference is I do not think those Evils will go away just because the Dems take over

 

[Tech_Esq]

Puleeze... were you complaining about the 60 million dollars spent investigating Bill Clinton with a microscope over 6 years?

didn't think so....

So your point is because that side "wasted" money, your side should be able to waste money too?

That's right smart thinking there.....you might be a Rhodes Scholar too. Now can you tell me the meaning of the word "is"?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Who's wasting time and money?

Over the past five years, there have been more than 260 threats of a legislative filibuster in the Senate. But the numbers suggest that with Democrats now in power, such tactics are dramatically on the rise. Sixty-four times this year legislation has come before the Senate requiring 60 votes or more to pass - almost twice as many as all of last year, when the balance of power was switched, and nearly three times as much as 2005.

With more than three months left to go in the current Congress, the U.S. Senate has already seen 45 cloture motions -- measures introduced by a senator requiring a 3/5 majority to end debate. Twenty-three of these motions have been rejected. In addition, there have been 19 votes in which the Senate has voluntarily agreed to work along a three-fifths threshold, thereby avoiding the cumbersome process of invoking cloture (which requires a 30-hour waiting period). In 2006, such a procedural move occurred just twice.

Combined, these methods of forcing super-majority votes have made the current Congress a paradigm of political gridlock. Among the legislation that has succumbed to natural and pseudo-filibustering are amendments to advance stem cell research, a bill that would have reduced the cost of attending college, multiple pieces of legislation designed to facilitate a drawdown of troops from Iraq, and a provision that would have allowed the Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices with drug companies.

"This is part of a longer trend, whereby 60 votes are now required for anything significant," Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, said to the Huffington Post. "It used to be that requiring 60 votes, members had to bring in cots and have a real filibuster. Now the minority simply says no, we're not going let you bring that up. It's the way the process has changed on the Hill."

On the whole, the GOP has proven successful in using procedural tactics to drastically slow down Democratic priorities. As speaker of the Montana Legislature, Senator John Tester, D-MT, saw more than 1,000 bills in a three-month period. In Washington, the number of bills sent by Congress to the President so far this year has numbered 89.

New Figures Reveal Aggressive GOP Obstructionist Strategy

Chalk that up to reaping what you sow.

 

[Tech_Esq]

PNAC was also right when they said the would need another Pearl Harbor type incident to push their radical agenda. They sure got it.

No wonder Condy wouldn't take Richard Armitage's or Tenet's report called, "Bin Ladin Determined To Attack Inside The US Using Airplanes".

How else would she be able to later say, "we could have never imagined..."

So your saying they wanted to conduct a modern day version of Operation Northwoods (US military attacking the US in the guise of Cubans to provoke a war with Cuba)?

And, would you further be suggesting that they carried out such an operation?

 

[sealybobo]

I'm just saying somewhere in PNAC they said they would need another Pearl Harbor type incident to push their radical ideas. You decide. Next thing you know, Chaney has control of NORAD, which a VP has never done before, and they ignored the FBI warnings that Bin Ladin said he would do it, and then lied afterward about never imagining it could happen. They didn't even warn the airlines? Sorta like they wanted it to happen. But I'm a conspiracy nut. What do I know.

You decide for yourself. I think it all looks suspect.

Naomi Klein writes about Disaster Capitalism and the Shock Doctrine. You should read it.

If you go back and remember all the crap going on in 2001, and learn about their little secret meetings in the 90's and then you start to wonder things like, "who sent the antrax".

Then you see the Bush ties to the Bin Ladins. Then you learn that the 9-11 report is bullshit.

I don't know. I'm too afraid of Chaney to even think. And that was their goal. BINGO. MIssion Accomplished.

 

[sealybobo]

also, the same bullshit happened in the guilded age, great depression and viet nam. Yes, history is repeating itself. If you won't believe it is history, then you are destined to repeat it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Er... because of the misuse of the system... just because there isn't going to be an impeachment doesn't mean there won't be criminal charges later on.

Did you just want Bush and co to be able to run out the clock?

I can promise you Jillian, if Bush or Cheney are arrested after leaving office YOU will find a revolt in progress, an armed revolt.

There is NO evidence Bush or anyone else lied about anything, never has been , never will be. Why? Because in order for them to have lied the ENTIRE free world had to be telling the EXACT same lies. All the Dems in power before Bush had to be lying as well.

Play this game all you want, I can promise it won't win any votes, it probably will lose Obama votes if he supports it in any way.

Go ahead, START the armed rebellion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Who's wasting time and money?

Over the past five years, there have been more than 260 threats of a legislative filibuster in the Senate. But the numbers suggest that with Democrats now in power, such tactics are dramatically on the rise. Sixty-four times this year legislation has come before the Senate requiring 60 votes or more to pass - almost twice as many as all of last year, when the balance of power was switched, and nearly three times as much as 2005.

With more than three months left to go in the current Congress, the U.S. Senate has already seen 45 cloture motions -- measures introduced by a senator requiring a 3/5 majority to end debate. Twenty-three of these motions have been rejected. In addition, there have been 19 votes in which the Senate has voluntarily agreed to work along a three-fifths threshold, thereby avoiding the cumbersome process of invoking cloture (which requires a 30-hour waiting period). In 2006, such a procedural move occurred just twice.

Combined, these methods of forcing super-majority votes have made the current Congress a paradigm of political gridlock. Among the legislation that has succumbed to natural and pseudo-filibustering are amendments to advance stem cell research, a bill that would have reduced the cost of attending college, multiple pieces of legislation designed to facilitate a drawdown of troops from Iraq, and a provision that would have allowed the Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices with drug companies.

"This is part of a longer trend, whereby 60 votes are now required for anything significant," Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, said to the Huffington Post. "It used to be that requiring 60 votes, members had to bring in cots and have a real filibuster. Now the minority simply says no, we're not going let you bring that up. It's the way the process has changed on the Hill."

On the whole, the GOP has proven successful in using procedural tactics to drastically slow down Democratic priorities. As speaker of the Montana Legislature, Senator John Tester, D-MT, saw more than 1,000 bills in a three-month period. In Washington, the number of bills sent by Congress to the President so far this year has numbered 89.

New Figures Reveal Aggressive GOP Obstructionist Strategy

Yet you did not mind when the dems did exactly that on EVERY Judge or nominee Bush put up for the year they ran the Senate, go figure.

 

[Shogun]

It's cute how lil Denny is getting a few minutes in the spotlight. A total waste of time.. but whatever.


I wonder, when he fails to convince anyone else in congress to proceed with throwing Bush in jail if the conspiracy theorists will calm down or have another chapter to write in this illuminati-esque saga...

 

[sealybobo]

I find the fact that you call it a charade amusing.

And why should it wait?

I think Bill Clinton shouldn't have had to give testimony in a civil matter during his term of office, just like had been done for every president about whom such a question was raised.

So there ya go.

They're in the discovery phase, right?

And why wait? For memories to forget so they "don't recall"?

for statutes of limitations to run up?

For Chaney to move to Dubai?

I don't want them to waste a lot of time and money on this either, but waiting isn't going to make this any cheaper. And since the GOP is blocking any progress anyways, what else is there to do?

 

[sealybobo]

Never mind Jillian I forgot you are not actually looking for a debate on the subject, You just want to see Bush Jailed. Ok fine if that is what you want, that is your right.

Me I just do not want to see money wasted on an impeachment process that will never be carried out. I did not want to see it when it was Clinton and I do not want to see it now.

Debate away!!! We are all ears.

 

[sealybobo]

The president is supposed to be above all that. Remember he's a Rhodes Scholar and oh so much smarter and better than everyone else. Surely, he wouldn't have been distracted by anything. That's for mere mortals.

Wasn't Bush reading kiddy stories to 3rd graders when 9-11 happened? How many minutes went by and he just sat there?

Why can't tv stations show that clip of him sitting in that classroom?

 

[Charles_Main]

Wasn't Bush reading kiddy stories to 3rd graders when 9-11 happened? How many minutes went by and he just sat there?

Why can't tv stations show that clip of him sitting in that classroom?

What do you mean they cant, I have seen it a million times.

 

[sealybobo]

So your point is because that side "wasted" money, your side should be able to waste money too?

That's right smart thinking there.....you might be a Rhodes Scholar too. Now can you tell me the meaning of the word "is"?

This won't be a waste of money. People need to pay. No one died when Clinton lied.

 

[jillian]

So your point is because that side "wasted" money, your side should be able to waste money too?

That's right smart thinking there.....you might be a Rhodes Scholar too. Now can you tell me the meaning of the word "is"?

I'm sorry... do you have something of value to say on this subject or you want to keep repeating the right's slurs of Bill Clinton?

Either way, if you didn't complain about the millions spent on the Starr proceedings, you really have no standing to say word one.

 

[Tech_Esq]

This won't be a waste of money. People need to pay. No one died when Clinton lied.

You want to review the body count from the Clinton White House? Nice little rhyme though, you looking for Johnny Cochran's old job?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm sorry... do you have something of value to say on this subject or you want to keep repeating the right's slurs of Bill Clinton?

Either way, if you didn't complain about the millions spent on the Starr proceedings, you really have no standing to say word one.

Trolling again I see Jillian. Don't like what you hear so make ignorant claims about the post. standard process when you have no rebuttal.

 

[jillian]

I can promise you Jillian, if Bush or Cheney are arrested after leaving office YOU will find a revolt in progress, an armed revolt.

That might be one of the most ridiculous things you've ever said. No one staged an armed revolt when Bill Clinton got dragged before your Starr Chamber.

This admin needs to man up and answer questions.

Why are you afraid for them to answer questions?

There is NO evidence Bush or anyone else lied about anything, never has been , never will be.

You can pretend that's true, I suppose.

Why? Because in order for them to have lied the ENTIRE free world had to be telling the EXACT same lies. All the Dems in power before Bush had to be lying as well.

Play this game all you want, I can promise it won't win any votes, it probably will lose Obama votes if he supports it in any way.

Go ahead, START the armed rebellion.

Are you threatening treason?

Be careful, FISA might get ya.

 

[Charles_Main]

Originally Posted by sealybobo
This won't be a waste of money. People need to pay. No one died when Clinton lied.

Sure because Clinton holds no responsibility for 911 after all I mean it was not planned under his watch, the First attack on the WTC did not happen under his watch, the Cole, and embassy bombings did not happen under his watch, and he did not do almost nothing about terrorism on his watch.

Right!!!

 

[jillian]

Sure because Clinton holds no responsibility for 911 after all I mean it was not planned under his watch, the First attack on the WTC did not happen under his watch, the Cole, and embassy bombings did not happen under his watch, and he did not do almost nothing about terrorism on his watch.

Right!!!

You are aware, right, that they aren't investigating impeachable offenses... no "high crimes and misdemenors".

They've limited the questioning to "abuses" of power.

I guess you can deflect with the 9/11 garbage... but not really any point.