It doesn't  matter on what side of the aisle your sympathies lie...you just have to be amazed at the toothlessness, cravenness and equivocating of our current Congress:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0708/Pelosi_says_House_Judiciary_may_hold_hearings_on_Kucinich_impeachment_resolution.html?

Quote from: KenHR;224356It doesn't  matter on what side of the aisle your sympathies lie...you just have to be amazed at the toothlessness, cravenness and equivocating of our current Congress:

The problem is that while Congress as a whole has an approval rating worse than Bush's, most people keep voting for their members of Congress and blame the people elected by others for the problems.

This sort of thing but with Congressional redistricting would probably help quite a bit.

That's a great observation, and a great redistricting proposition, too.  Funny that Pelosi opposes it...they all scream "Partisan Politics = BAD!" until they get the majority.

I would have a helluva lot more respect for Congress if they, you know, did their job.  Even if they pass legislation I don't necessarily agree with.  Articles like the one I linked, though...it makes the legislative branch look like the worst caricature of a Board Room meeting or Focus Group.  It's gotten so bad that I don't think I would have blinked if she said they were considering whether to hold hearings on the possibility of holding hearings on Kucinich's articles.

And whoever thought an old rich lady from Cali would be in touch with the will of the people?  Ugh.

See, this is another one of those stupid things that drive me crazy.  Why are we wasting time on crap that is pointless when the country is going down the tubes and needs real solutions!?!?

I hate Bush.  Absolutely hate him.  I think he is unequivocally the worst president ever and a complete moron.  I believe his inner circle is composed of some of the most evil people in the country who are nothing short of fascists.

But he really hasn't done anything impeachable, and everyone sane knows it.  I may hate his actions, but being stupid and making bad decisions isn't impeachable, nor should it be.  So let's stop wasting our time.

And Kucinich - why do people elect that nutjob?  How is it so many nuts end up in the House?

Quote from: jgants;224380And Kucinich - why do people elect that nutjob?  How is it so many nuts end up in the House?

It is, after all, the closest representation of The People...

Quote from: James J Skach;224403It is, after all, the closest representation of The People...

Which is exactly why I don't like Jackelope's anarchy ideas.  It's hard enough dealing with morons who can't even elect someone smart to make decisions for them.  If we have them making decisions for themselves we're really in trouble.

Quote from: jgants;224409Which is exactly why I don't like Jackelope's anarchy ideas.  It's hard enough dealing with morons who can't even elect someone smart to make decisions for them.  If we have them making decisions for themselves we're really in trouble.

Yes - the first problem we must change to stop the world from falling apart is to stop all of this rubbish about one making decisions for oneself. It leads to all sorts of problems.

The problem with freedom, you see, is you're never quite sure what people are going to do with it.

Quote from: James J Skach;224415Yes - the first problem we must change to stop the world from falling apart is to stop all of this rubbish about one making decisions for oneself. It leads to all sorts of problems.

The problem with freedom, you see, is you're never quite sure what people are going to do with it.

Nah, we just ship all the dumb/crazy people off to a different island or something.  I suggest California (ala Escape From LA).

QuoteBut he really hasn't done anything impeachable, and everyone sane knows it. I may hate his actions, but being stupid and making bad decisions isn't impeachable, nor should it be. So let's stop wasting our time.

Hmm - so intentionally misleading the nation into a tragic war and then denying the deception as an unintentional misunderstanding (but a mistake we need to KEEP MAKING) is not an impeachable offense? Your argument sounds like the woman whose husband got drunk and beat her up telling the cops "He's no criminal officer, he's my man. Sometimes I need a good whuppin' "

Quote from: Kellri;224504Hmm - so intentionally misleading the nation into a tragic war and then denying the deception as an unintentional misunderstanding (but a mistake we need to KEEP MAKING) is not an impeachable offense? Your argument sounds like the woman whose husband got drunk and beat her up telling the cops "He's no criminal officer, he's my man. Sometimes I need a good whuppin' "

In jgants defense, it's more than difficult to prove that it was an intentionally misleading act - no matter what the conspiracies might say.

Quote from: James J Skach;224506In jgants defense, it's more than difficult to prove that it was an intentionally misleading act - no matter what the conspiracies might say.

That's the thing.

And the fact that it's even being mentioned now is a laugh.  We're in the last six months of GWB's presidency.  If they really wanted to get rid of the man, they would have done it long ago, when Conyers first wrote his articles of impeachment.  At best, it's grandstanding.

Quote from: Kellri;224504Hmm - so intentionally misleading the nation into a tragic war and then denying the deception as an unintentional misunderstanding (but a mistake we need to KEEP MAKING) is not an impeachable offense?

The war really isn't so tragic when compared to most others and plenty of people believed there were WMD there.  Similarly, much of the talk of Genocide and hundreds of thousands of murdered Kosovo Albanians used to justify the attacks on Serbia never panned out, either, but I think it would be silly to argue that Bill Clinton and Tony Blair didn't believe it was happening.  THe problem in both cases is that both Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milošević were generally such evil people who had done so many nasty things in the past that it really wasn't that hard to believe they were up to terrible things now.  And in both cases, people with a vested interest in the US attacking (Iraqi exiles and Kosovo Albanians) fed the world propaganda to encourage the attack.

Quote from: Kellri;224504Your argument sounds like the woman whose husband got drunk and beat her up telling the cops "He's no criminal officer, he's my man. Sometimes I need a good whuppin' "

No.  The argument is like a man whose house had been burglarized several times shooting the next stranger who walked into his house, who turns out a drunk neighbor who, thought it was his house and decided to kick the door in when his key wouldn't open it.  Tragic and wrong but not an intentional crime and even a somewhat understandable mistake.

Quote from: KenHR;224545At best, it's grandstanding.

It plays well to the Bush Derangement Syndrome crowd but it's never going to happen.  They're just teasing and know they can get away with it.

Quoteit's more than difficult to prove that it was an intentionally misleading act - no matter what the conspiracies might say.

Do you really need to catch the neighbor in the act of nailing your wife before you finally admit you want a divorce? The presidency attracts schemers. That's not a conspiracy theory. In the case of Nixon and Bush, when their schemes veer into the dangerously absurd they need to be smacked down (i.e. impeached) in order to send a message to their successors about the limits of power.

QuoteThe war really isn't so tragic when compared to most others and plenty of people believed there were WMD there.

From where I'm living, I'd say all war is tragic. Trying to distinguish between a good war and a bad war is what aggressors do, not defenders. The Iraqis sure as hell aren't wondering if it's a good idea - they've been asking us to leave.

Quote from: Kellri;224592Do you really need to catch the neighbor in the act of nailing your wife before you finally admit you want a divorce?

We're not talking about a divorce.  We're talking about accusing someone of criminal activity.  A divorce would have been the majority of the American people voting for Kerry in 2004, which didn't happen.

Quote from: Kellri;224592The presidency attracts schemers. That's not a conspiracy theory. In the case of Nixon and Bush, when their schemes veer into the dangerously absurd they need to be smacked down (i.e. impeached) in order to send a message to their successors about the limits of power.

Absurd schemes that some people don't like aren't one of the enumerated reasons why a President should be removed via impeachment in the office.  You'd need to show treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.  If you could demonstrate that Bush started the war to enrich his friends, that would qualify.  And in essence, you want to impeach on the same basis that people complain Bush went to war with Iraq, which is suspicions with thin evidence to support them.  After all, wasn't Saddam a schemer who needed a smack down to serve as an example for others in the Middle East?  Don't you want to impeach Bush on the very same basis on which he invaded Iraq -- suspicions that he just has to be guilty and needs to be made an example of?

Quote from: Kellri;224592From where I'm living, I'd say all war is tragic. Trying to distinguish between a good war and a bad war is what aggressors do, not defenders.

The line between aggressor and defender is not so neat and clean as you imagine it to be.  Remember that Saddam Hussein invaded Iraq and signed a ceasefire promising to comply with requirements and that the US and UK continued to attack targets in Iraq throughout the 1990s.  And since you don't support wars of aggression, I suppose that means you fully support the international community sitting on their hands during incidents like the genocide in Rwanda and Darfur because what goes on in a sovereign nation is its own business right?

Quote from: Kellri;224592The Iraqis sure as hell aren't wondering if it's a good idea - they've been asking us to leave.

Consider this recent poll:

   Attitudes toward Americans are ambivalent. On the one hand, Iraqis are deeply uncomfortable with the occupation  73 percent say they oppose the presence of U.S. troops on Iraqi soil. When asked whether the U.S. troop surge has contributed to the drop in violence, a little more than half say no. But in a telling reality check, when asked whether U.S. troops should leave Iraq now, only 38 percent agreed  the majority wants U.S. troops to stay until security is guaranteed.

Even in this poll, which the BBC was spinning as showing the surge failing, you'll notice that the "Leave Now" numbers in the three polls shown never hits 50%.