|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:11 PM Original message |
Why, if our President Clinton was impeached, are Dems unwilling to impeach Bush? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dbt (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:13 PM Response to Original message |
1. Pelosi obviously wants to be impeached first. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Thothmes (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 09:09 PM Response to Reply #1 |
80. She cannot be impeached. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:14 PM Response to Original message |
2. Matt Taibbi from Rolling Stone has the answer. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Echo In Light (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:04 PM Response to Reply #2 |
50. It's a corporate mafia: sacrifice one of their own occasionally, but don't upset the apple cart |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KeepItReal (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 09:19 PM Response to Reply #2 |
82. "like an NFL coach... trying with a straight face to explain why he punted on first-and-goal" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DrDan (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:14 PM Response to Original message |
3. don't you imagine that they believe the citizens were fed up with |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:16 PM Response to Reply #3 |
6. Nope. I'll bet if I ask every DEM they're READY to impeach the criminals in the White House! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:42 PM Response to Reply #6 |
33. Pollsters have asked that question and you won't like the answer |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:03 PM Response to Reply #33 |
49. I guess it doesn't surprise me. After all, the same people voted for Reagan, voted for Bush, etc. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Thothmes (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 09:17 PM Response to Reply #49 |
81. Probably Not |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WinkyDink (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 10:18 PM Response to Reply #3 |
83. "Citizens" do nothing. They don't HAVE to read about it or watch TV. IOW, "citizens" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
robinlynne (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:15 PM Response to Original message |
4. good question. They onyl care about the election, and are afraid that the public |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
leftofthedial (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:16 PM Response to Original message |
5. 2000 was a coup |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Uncle Joe (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:18 PM Response to Reply #5 |
7. I totally agree. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:44 PM Response to Reply #5 |
20. Yes, because the witchhunt against Bill Clinton began long before he lied about having sex..... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Uncle Joe (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:59 PM Response to Reply #20 |
26. I've come to the conclusion the witch hunt against Clinton was prolonged |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 06:56 PM Response to Reply #26 |
45. That's a very interesting theory and it makes sense. Thank you. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Echo In Light (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:13 PM Response to Reply #26 |
55. Powers That Be knew what was around the corner {2000, 9/11, coup} so media smeared the Left... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:18 PM Response to Reply #55 |
59. Now that is an interesting idea. I myself believe that it was too damned convenient for 9/11 to |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Echo In Light (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:28 PM Response to Reply #59 |
68. Precisely. In finding a culprit, one always looks to see who benefits most from the crime |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:39 PM Response to Reply #68 |
72. "Follow the money" nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Red Zelda (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:21 PM Response to Original message |
8. Because "they" have balls |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
xchrom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:22 PM Response to Original message |
9. it's how you teach them to stop fucking with you. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:42 PM Response to Reply #9 |
18. EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!! nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mitchum (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:22 PM Response to Original message |
10. They all work for the same company: Oligarchs R Us |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RC (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:23 PM Response to Original message |
11. Impeaching bu$h would upset the criminals in the..... errr, the republicans. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
baldguy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:26 PM Response to Original message |
12. Dems view impeachment as a legal proceeding. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Uncle Joe (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:34 PM Response to Reply #12 |
15. I don't buy that argument, if Bush/Cheney haven't already given them enough evidence |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:31 PM Response to Original message |
13. Because it's guaranteed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:33 PM Response to Reply #13 |
14. Not really. Our president Clinton was impeached, and it continues to humiliate us.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:35 PM Response to Reply #14 |
16. Clinton was acquitted. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:41 PM Response to Reply #16 |
17. For godssakes, he WAS impeached and it continues to be an embarrassment to us! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:46 PM Response to Reply #17 |
21. Have I ever said Clinton wasn't impeached? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:51 PM Response to Reply #21 |
24. Republicans did not get hurt by impeaching Clinton. The Clintons became a laughingstock because of |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 01:02 PM Response to Reply #24 |
27. Yes |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 06:58 PM Response to Reply #27 |
46. No, in fact, the Republicans gained strength after impeaching President Clinton.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:22 PM Response to Reply #13 |
62. So frikkin what? It would go down in history, the crimes, everything would come out.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Echo In Light (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:25 PM Response to Reply #62 |
64. And all of the other politicos and scores beholden to various corporations/organizations |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:26 PM Response to Reply #64 |
66. God that gave me chills. You're right. What can I say? So are we all screwed forever by this |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Echo In Light (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:31 PM Response to Reply #66 |
69. The "corporate power structure" is also the "military-industrial complex" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:39 PM Response to Reply #69 |
71. Yes! And the military-industrial complex is feeding off the public trough, which is provided by us |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CGowen (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:43 PM Response to Original message |
19. Conyers said something of "corporate power structure" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:46 PM Response to Reply #19 |
22. One way or another Dems always find an excuse not to impeach.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hamlette (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:51 PM Response to Original message |
23. Because Clinton's popularity went UP during impeachment |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 12:55 PM Response to Reply #23 |
25. I don't think Bush would "get" to impeachment. His people would make sure it'd get stalled.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Orsino (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 01:20 PM Response to Original message |
28. They can't convict * of anything in which they aren't complicit... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
keep_it_real (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 01:32 PM Response to Original message |
29. In a word "politics" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:19 PM Response to Reply #29 |
60. Why don't they have the balls to impeach and take over? What's wrong with these people? nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
zazen (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:27 PM Response to Original message |
30. with impeachment proceedings, what if Bush/Cheney refused to comply? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:15 PM Response to Reply #30 |
58. Well, I'm not an expert in impeachment, but what happens if an impeached president.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SmellsLikeDeanSpirit (471 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:30 PM Response to Original message |
31. Because they are pussies. Damn this party pisses me off sometimes. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:15 PM Response to Reply #31 |
57. It is cowardly. Other countries' lib parties are strong. I'd like for once to see Dems be strong.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Brigid (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:33 PM Response to Original message |
32. Because they're SPINELESS! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:14 PM Response to Reply #32 |
56. They're afraid Bush the village idiot has more balls than they do? nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
karynnj (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 02:44 PM Response to Original message |
34. An interesting answer I heard from a friend |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KoKo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 04:13 PM Response to Reply #34 |
38. sadly what you say is probably the truth of it. Plus Congress for the most part |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:13 PM Response to Reply #34 |
54. Wow what a great post that is! Very thought-provoking! Thank you. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Riddler (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 03:40 PM Response to Original message |
35. Two Words..... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:12 PM Response to Reply #35 |
53. If that's true we should all be terrified of the Dems in Congress. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 03:54 PM Response to Original message |
36. Because Democratic voters aren't demanding it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:11 PM Response to Reply #36 |
52. I don't know one Democrat that isn't demanding it or doesn't want it. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Feb-10-08 01:20 AM Response to Reply #52 |
87. well, you obviously don't know all Democrats then. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Rosemary2205 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 04:06 PM Response to Original message |
37. because the citizens of this country think that would be "tit for tat" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TankLV (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 04:43 PM Response to Original message |
39. your guess is a good as mine - I'd have thought they'd have been spitting blood like me LONG ago... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Justpat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 04:50 PM Response to Original message |
40. Most people knew the Clinton impeachment was a farce. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
warren pease (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 05:51 PM Response to Original message |
41. Because congress' so-called leaders are taking advice from absolute idiots who... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:09 PM Response to Reply #41 |
51. Thank you for this post. It explains a lot. (And I agree with you). |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
warren pease (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 10:20 PM Response to Reply #51 |
84. My best guess... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kitty Herder (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 05:55 PM Response to Original message |
42. Because they fear than impeachment trial would reveal |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Disturbed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 06:28 PM Response to Reply #42 |
44. When Pelosi said: "Impeachment is off the table." it was |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kitty Herder (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:00 PM Response to Reply #44 |
48. I've had that same thought, actually. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:24 PM Response to Reply #44 |
63. You know what? You're RIGHT! Why did that f coward Pelosi come out with that ASAP? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
leftchick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 05:57 PM Response to Original message |
43. is this a rhetorical question? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:00 PM Response to Reply #43 |
47. So why weren't the Republicans reluctant to impeach Clinton, if indeed the shit rises to the top? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
leftchick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:27 PM Response to Reply #47 |
67. hmmm, blowjob vs High Crimes and misdimeaners?? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:37 PM Response to Reply #67 |
70. You're right. However, here's a question for you..... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Echo In Light (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:49 PM Response to Reply #70 |
73. Naturally there will be personal differences despite collective action/inaction |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 08:12 PM Response to Reply #73 |
78. True. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
leftchick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:57 PM Response to Reply #70 |
74. I don't know if he was lying there |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 08:29 PM Response to Reply #74 |
79. Yeah, I get really angry sometimes |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Echo In Light (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:20 PM Response to Reply #43 |
61. Yes, Leftchick. The system is rigged and pre-determined. "Accidents" usually don't occur in pol |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sarah Ibarruri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 07:25 PM Response to Reply #61 |
65. Interesting and very very scary isn't it? nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cleita (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 08:00 PM Response to Original message |
75. Probably because investigations might bring out that they too |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 08:03 PM Response to Original message |
76. Could be the overwhelming nature of it where we'd have to impeach |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
robcon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 08:04 PM Response to Original message |
77. I think you know, Sarah Ibarruri |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 10:48 PM Response to Original message |
85. Deleted message |
area51 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-09-08 11:42 PM Response to Reply #85 |
86. You forgot the sarcasm icon. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DiamondJay (484 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Feb-10-08 01:34 AM Response to Original message |
88. because they're fucking pussies |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Thu May 02nd 2024, 06:02 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC