See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Just Heard Kucinich Resolution has PASSED 217 to 194
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Nov 6, 2007
Author: me
Post Date: 2007-11-06 19:26:28 by tom007
Keywords: None
Views: 725
Comments: 53
Randi Rhodes air America Hope this is true.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: tom007 (#0)
Hope so. VP Cheney off to Dr. Guillotines rest home.
With Dr. Drawnan Kuarterd attending?
Yes and I will be there with the basket???? LOL
Has been referred to the Judicuary committeee, John Conyers is the head it it.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" Now lets see how bold and daring the dems are. If they are like the pubs, they will stumble fumble and fall.
FYI...Ron Paul voted YES "On Motion to Table" H RES 799 that would have killed the Resolution.
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
The motion to table (dispose of) the resolution failed, as Republicans voted not to table. Then a majority voted to refer the motion to Conyers's Judiciary Committee. It will presumably languish there, the way Kucinich's earlier resolution has. The thread on Daily Kos is pretty informative on this: OK, so did you get that?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Thanks, I'll go now. Be making some phone call tomorrow to express my thoughts on this to the snakes in DC.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" It got sent to the Judiciary Committee, just like it did when he introduced it back on April 24, 2007.
I wonder why he voted yes?
1. It's a distraction from "more important" issues, ie, impeaching Cheney solves nothing while Bush is President 2. Paul figures that he needs support of the National party heads 3. Impeachment gives the Dems a "bully pulpit" against the Repubs 4. all of the above
2. Paul figures that he needs support of the National party heads 3. Impeachment gives the Dems a "bully pulpit" against the Repubs 4. all of the above None of the reasons you quoted excuse why Ron Paul voted yes to table. I'll give him the benefit of doubt for now but I want to hear from him /read on his House website the reasons why he voted the way he did. They better be good.
Huh? Seriously? And his excuse is?
Honi soit qui mal y pense
We do what we must to maintain support, when needed. By not doing so, would have meant the GOP being completely alienated from Ron Paul. The GOP actually need Ron Paul, more than he needs them, as I would wager that Ron Paul will be offered a VP spot on the Republican Ticket in 2008, in order to keep the support of the people who are behind Ron Paul's Campaign.
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
Snicker. They got the racist, homophobe, hatemongering, thug, KKK and stupid vote locked up. Why would they care about the Libertarians? Dream on.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
He's a Republican. He is not going to vote to get rid of a guy that has no real power just to make a point.
God is always good!
Oh goody, yet another one of those posters who hits and runs. The 4 in your nickname was the give away. Nice post shill. Any of the other shilling cohorts on this site, trying to race bait here? Keep trying loser.
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
Jesus, you gotta stop drinking so much. Or whatever. I've been here longer than you have. Nite nite, nuttyboy.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Yet another hit and run liar. Keep shilling.
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
Lemme guess, you got that from Pigboy and his drive-by media, right? Clever boy.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Perhaps Dr. Paul has been temporarily infected by the Dem Party weasel disease. I'm sure Dr. Paul will recover, though I can't say the same is true for Nancy and Steny and Rahm and the other Dem Party neoziolibs.
Gee, I'm afraid to respond to your idiotic comment for fear you think I'm somehow threatening you. God you're funny.
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
Is that something like Pigboy's feminazis or Bush's Islamonazis? Do you even know what the hell you are talking about or are you just too drugged up to even think anymore?
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Snicker. You're just someone from DU pretending to be a stupid right-wing fruitcake, admit it. Pretty good job, I have to admit.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Oh God... Please... Your insightfulness borders on the supernatural. I don't think I've ever seen someone quite as adept as distraction when it comes to posting on a forum. Then again... All liars are good at that sort of thing.
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
a. Racist? As an appointing 2 blacks to cabinet ministers' posts? As in doing more for blacks the past 2 terms than Clinton and the Dems did in theirs? www.wil lisms.com/archives.../trivia_tidbit_o_202.html Racist as in causing the Black Ministers to tell their congregations to vote GOP because the Dems take the black vote for granted and did nothing for them except keep them on the dole. b. Homophobe as in Log Cabin Republicans? Homophobe as in the Ohio Dems who voted dubya back into power in 2004 because they were homophobically opposed to gay marriages. Homophobic GOP as in Dem controlled states like Oregon that were by a significant majority homophobically opposed to gay marriage? c. Hate mongering as in anti-Christianity? Hate mongering as in anti-Muslims? Consider the left wing ACLU and its attack on anything and everything Christian and consider the Muslim haters like Joe Lie-berman and Rahm Emanuel who promote ME wars for Israel's benefit... d. KKK as in Bobby Kleagle Bird? e. Stupid vote as in lockstep Dem voters who fell for the lies of the other half of the 2 fraud party - called the Dems - and voted in a Dem Majority in 2006 so Nancy and Harry could end the Iraq occupation ( Ha!) and end the corruption in DC. ( say AIPAC lobby anyone - oh yes, AIPAC was excluded from the Dem bill to clean up lobby groups) Excuse me while I barf when I read your ill-informed sanctimonious tripe.
Do you even know what the hell you are talking about or are you just too drugged up to even think anymore? Neozios are the counterpart to the neoziocons. IsraelFirsters come in GOP and in Dem stripes. It doesn't take too much familiarity with DC politics to understand what I meant. But then again, you don't have much understanding of politics... You just have that unfaltering belief that GOP=bad and Dems=good; that GOP=christofundyendtimeforeignwars and Dems=anti- war compassionate "secularists"...rigghhhttt... Dem presidential candidates get 60% of their campaign money from American Jews - think about that for a second or 2 before you mock my phrase "neoziolibs," punk. I usually don't use bad language but you are an exception because you are an ignorant and rude Dem party apparatchik who can't see past his next taxpayer supported freebie hand out - now f*ck off you a**hole. I'm tired of your crude and insulting one- liners.
More to the point, Dr. Paul is a CONSTITUTIONALIST Republican. Impeachment is a very serious constitutional procedural matter and appropriate procedural steps including a formal investigation must take place before there's a vote. Emotionally most Americans would like to impeach Cheney and hang him by his knackers on prime time TV but realistically there are formal steps that need to take place in the impeachment process. I don't think Dems care about the constitutionally required process for impeachment. They wouldn't know constitutional mandates if they bit the Dems in their socialist asses. Frankly the Dems would prefer not to lose their excellent attack dog ( Cheney) to impeachment because Cheney is a useful tool to lead us into a new war for lies against Iran. Once dubya/cheney leave and if Iran has not been attacked, dumteedumdum, then AIPAC and the Dem Party's IsraelFirst voters will be knocking on their doors to do the dire deed come 2009. Thank you, Ricky, for reminding me what Dr. Paul stands for - the constitution.
Bless your dear heart, lady..........Bravo!
To do that, you vote to refer the motion to committee. You don't vote to table it.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
scrapper2 has been indulging in diatribes as incoherent as "neoziolibs". From this thread.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
There was no incoherence in my remarks. I explained myself very well in the thread you reference. You just did not like what I said - as usual. That's no reason to claim it is incoherent. Diatribe is what your pal mekons does best. Back door sniping is more your style, ari. spit, spit
I did not know that. Thank you. However, in my reference to the Dems, I was speaking generally about their lack of adherence to the constitution as opposed to Ron Paul, who voted with the Dems on the Kucinich bill.
Why did Steny Hoyer and so many Dems vote to table it then?
Because they wanted Kucinich's resolution -- and any debate on it -- to just go away. Having failed to do that by tabling it, they did the next best thing: bottle it up in committee.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Having failed to do that by tabling it, they did the next best thing: bottle it up in committee. Why do you suppose the Dems did not want any debate on Kucinich's resolution to impeach Cheney?
Comments (42 - 53) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Cynicom (#1)
#3. To: angle (#2)
With Dr. Drawnan Kuarterd attending?
#4. To: Cynicom (#1)
#5. To: tom007 (#4)
#6. To: tom007 (#0)
#7. To: tom007 (#0)
#8. To: aristeides (#7)
#9. To: tom007 (#0)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#10. To: Brian S (#6)
#11. To: Critter (#10)
I wonder why he voted yes?
#12. To: rack42 (#11)
It's a distraction from "more important" issues, ie, impeaching Cheney solves nothing while Bush is President
#13. To: Brian S (#6)
FYI...Ron Paul voted YES "On Motion to Table" H RES 799 that would have killed the Resolution.
#14. To: Mekons4 (#13)
#15. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#14)
#16. To: Mekons4 (#13)
Huh? Seriously? And his excuse is?
#17. To: Mekons4, christine, *You Gotta Be Shitting Me* (#15)
#18. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#17)
#19. To: Mekons4, christine, *You Gotta Be Shitting Me* (#18)
#20. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#19)
#21. To: Mekons4, All (#13)
Huh? Seriously? And his excuse is?
#22. To: Mekons4 (#20)
#23. To: scrapper2 (#21)
neoziolibs.
#24. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#22)
#25. To: Mekons4 (#24)
#26. To: Mekons4, TommyTheMadArtist, All, Burkeman1 (#15)
(Edited)
Snicker. They got the racist, homophobe, hatemongering, thug, KKK and stupid vote locked up. Why would they care about the Libertarians? Dream on.
#27. To: Mekons4 (#23)
neoziolibs. Is that something like Pigboy's feminazis or Bush's Islamonazis?
#28. To: RickyJ, BrianS, All, TommyTheMadArtist, Critter, christine, robin, rowdee (#16)
(Edited)
He's a Republican. He is not going to vote to get rid of a guy that has no real power just to make a point.
#29. To: scrapper2 (#27)
I usually don't use bad language but you are an exception because you are an ignorant and rude Dem party apparatchik who can't see past his next taxpayer supported freebie hand out - now f*ck off you a**hole. I'm tired of your crude and insulting one- liners.
#30. To: scrapper2 (#28)
Impeachment is a very serious constitutional procedural matter and appropriate procedural steps including a formal investigation must take place before there's a vote.
#31. To: Mekons4, scrapper2 (#23)
I agree with Turtle about DC and NYC -they can go to hell - change is not going to come from those 2 parts of the country - they're part of the fiscal problem we face today DC with its prolific spending on serial wars of choice and NYC as the symbol of the me me me socialist selfishness stateside.
#32. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#17)
#33. To: aristeides, Mekons4, scrapper2 (#31)
(Edited)
#34. To: scrapper2 (#12)
#35. To: scrapper2, Mekons4, TommyTheMadArtist, Burkeman1 (#26)
#36. To: scrapper2 (#28)
#37. To: aristeides (#31)
scrapper2 has been indulging in diatribes as incoherent as "neoziolibs". From this thread
#38. To: ghostdogtxn (#36)
(Edited)
The Democrats wrote the rules on how to do an impeachment during Nixon's time. It was the first one since Andy Jackson, and they wanted to get it right.
#39. To: aristeides (#30)
To do that, you vote to refer the motion to committee. You don't vote to table it.
#40. To: scrapper2 (#39)
Why did Steny Hoyer and so many Dems vote to table it then?
#41. To: aristeides (#40)
Because they wanted Kucinich's resolution -- and any debate on it -- to just go away.
.
.
.