Thread: Tough questions about impeachment as an option

ok

Agree to disagree would be a good position to take when your just butting heads.

Dixie

Agree...

Originally Posted by Dixie

Agree to disagree would be a good position to take when your just butting heads.

Dixie

There was nothing to agree or disagree with. There was just a series of about five posts that had no purpose other than sarcasm and disruption. I would dearly love to have a set of facts to debate, after which we could agree or disagree, but no one seems to want to or be able to present any sort of factual rebuttal. I was accused of everything but conspiring with La Raza for pointing out the absurdity of trying to pursue impeachment without a credible charge, so I created this thread where the issue could be broken down into the underlying issues and laws and be debated on their merits. I didn't create it so that people with nothing to say would stage hit and run attacks with less substance than the namecalling I endured in the other threads.

Feel free to delete the entire exchage with badger, but please do not lock or delete the thread until there has been some time allowed for SOMEONE to defend the impeachment argument.

I'm not going to lock it down. I think Bush diserves to be impeached. He's already done us way more harm than what Clinton did to be brought up for impeachement. I don't want Cheney in charge! Impeachable offences. I know High Treason is one. What are the other possibilities? I'm tired and can't think.

Let's just pick one and keep Bush occupied until '08.

Dixie

Let's just pick one and keep Bush occupied until '08.

Now... I agree with this statement

Sarcasm works!

Dixie

Originally Posted by Dixie

I'm not going to lock it down. I think Bush diserves to be impeached. He's already done us way more harm than what Clinton did to be brought up for impeachement. I don't want Cheney in charge! Impeachable offences. I know High Treason is one. What are the other possibilities? I'm tired and can't think.

Let's just pick one and keep Bush occupied until '08.

Dixie

I agree that the whole damned bunch needs to be out of office. That is not what I am debating. Haven't you been following along? I am making the VERY CLEAR CASE that there is no treason charge that can stick based on the sole definition of the crime of treason that counts in Art. III, Sec. 3. I am pointing out that there is no other charge that CONGRESS will press because every one that has been alluded to in the various rants on this site is one in which Congress is complicit. Understand?

If you will just go back to the first post of the thread and go through it point by point, then try to answer the questions at the end, you will clearly see what I am talking about. Will you do that, or are you going to join the churus trying to shout down any sensible debate based on the reality, not the pipe dreams, of the situation.

Originally Posted by Dixie

Sarcasm works!

Dixie

It works when it can be backed up with something when the need arises. Otherwise it's just hot air.

Crocket, I did respond to your impeachment discussion, I said I don't give a rat's arse about impeachment procedings, but, I do believe something will come to light that will bring him down! Will we be any better off, with whats left to choose between, Cheney or Polosi sorry, I can't spell either,in a nut shell, no. My real fear is that Cheney would have a heart attack, the big one this time, and "that" woman would be in charge, then I most definitely would have to move to immigrate illegally to Tahiti!