Sen. Kennedy's response to Cheney law breaking

[Nova Andromeda]

-Don't be an idiot. Using your reasoning Bush could be killing peole in the street and you'd still advocate sitting on your hands due to fear of a potential voter backlash!

And if we allow gay marriage then people will be having threesomes with family members in the streets!

(Slippery slope much?)

-It's hardly a slippery slope when idiots like you have a history of bending over backwards to find any excuse to avoid a fight regardless of the issue at hand.

[SirNitram]

-Like I said before, I'm not an expert on congressional power so I don't know what all the options are. However, if it is a choice between toothless guestures and a real fight it's well past time for a real fight. During the supreme court nominations the democrats thought they had sufficient power to gum up the works on a continual basis. I would not call that a "little power."

Talk to Liberman and the other turncoats then. Or do you think everyone approved of that? Oh yes, of course you do. In your trivial, subsapient mind, anyone who supports the Dems for the slightest reason is an 'Apologist' who thinks they've done wonderful things.

Retard.

-The primary problem the surrendercrats have with public relations is that they are viewed in the same way as the school yard nerd while the republicans occupy the position of the school yard bully. They simply reek of cowardly weakness and that's the last thing the public is going to support. The surrendercrats have dug this hole so deep that it will take a long hard fight to fix the problem. However, if they ever want to be taken seriously by the legions of irrational voters they need to stand up for their positions and fight back. Appeasement only encourages bullies. WW2 is a glaring example of how well that policy tends to work.

Taken seriously by the legions of irrational voters? What, you mean like getting not just a 'wave' election that sweeps them back into power after 12 years in the shitter, but maintaining that popularity well into 2007, an unheard of feat, especially if they manage to hold the seats they got in 2006?

Oh, wait. That's reality I'm talking about.

-Rahm's move is a half measure at best. It has yet to even pass, it's a move by only one surrendercrat as opposed to a concerted effort by all the surrendercrats, and Cheney can probably just run out the clock anyhow. This isn't about throwing a screaming fit over what color the tax code book should be. Cheney flouted yet another major law! The appropriate thing to do is ARREST THE FUCKING CRIMINAL! The law is absolutely clear. It's only a matter of enforcement.

Arrest him? Can't. Have to impeach. And sorry, dumbass, but as you bleat on about how the Dems should have done more on the SCOTUS issue(And I think they should have, but whatever; you're so brainwashed into your idiocy you'll keep calling me an 'apologist' anyway), you should realize the GOP can do the exact same thing. And destroy any chance at impeachment.

Or, you stupid little half-wit, didn't know you that someone's already tried to impeach Cheney?

[SirNitram]

-Don't be an idiot. Using your reasoning Bush could be killing peole in the street and you'd still advocate sitting on your hands due to fear of a potential voter backlash!

And if we allow gay marriage then people will be having threesomes with family members in the streets!

(Slippery slope much?)

-It's hardly a slippery slope when idiots like you have a history of bending over backwards to find any excuse to avoid a fight regardless of the issue at hand.

No matter how much you screech, it's still a slippery-slope fallacy.

[Stormbringer]

Unfortunately, the Democrats are in a tough position. The Republicans are splintering. If the Democrats start throwing around threats to impeach the lame-duck president and VP, despicable as they are, all they will do is rekindle the Republican instinct to circle the wagons and Congress won't be able to get anything done.

Which still doesn't explain their cowardice on issues in which the American public is solidly behind them. Bush is rolling over them on Iraq and that got them elected!

I think the Democrats simply don't have the fighting instincts that the Republicans do. They held a Congressional majority for way too long and they've yet to really find their balls even with the win.

Almost half the legislative branch is still composed of Bush butt-buddies. No matter how much they disagree with them, they won't impeach Bush or Cheney because that would be admitting that they were wrong. Smart Democrats aren't waving their cocks and chanting about impeachment, they are preparing for 2008.

You're certainly right that no party is going to sit idly by while their president is impeached. It's simply too inflammatory and both times it's been tried it's cost the part initiating it dearly.

However, if they were serious there are still plenty of ways they could rake this administration over the coals. Look at the Alberto Gonzales mess, had that been Janet Reno that did something like that the Republicans would have been demanding a resignation at the top of their longs from day one. On the Dick Cheney thing they've wasted time trying to rebutt Cheney's farcical arguement; instead they ought to just ram home the consequences for him. Let some ethics sub-comittee or other investigate the hell out of him and verbally tear him a new ass.

[Big Phil]

-Don't be an idiot. Using your reasoning Bush could be killing peole in the street and you'd still advocate sitting on your hands due to fear of a potential voter backlash!

And if we allow gay marriage then people will be having threesomes with family members in the streets!

(Slippery slope much?)

-It's hardly a slippery slope when idiots like you have a history of bending over backwards to find any excuse to avoid a fight regardless of the issue at hand.

I slipped and cracked my tail bone when Cheney herded the Democrats into gas chambers and the KKK were all sworn in to the New American Waffen SS...

[Nova Andromeda]

-Like I said before, I'm not an expert on congressional power so I don't know what all the options are. However, if it is a choice between toothless guestures and a real fight it's well past time for a real fight. During the supreme court nominations the democrats thought they had sufficient power to gum up the works on a continual basis. I would not call that a "little power."

Talk to Liberman and the other turncoats then. Or do you think everyone approved of that? Oh yes, of course you do. In your trivial, subsapient mind, anyone who supports the Dems for the slightest reason is an 'Apologist' who thinks they've done wonderful things.

-Take you're red hearing strawman combo and shove it. I was just rebutting your idiotic idea that the democrats have no power. That has NOTHING to do with who is or isn't an appologist. My point that the democrats have and had plenty of power remains.

-The primary problem the surrendercrats have with public relations is that they are viewed in the same way as the school yard nerd while the republicans occupy the position of the school yard bully. They simply reek of cowardly weakness and that's the last thing the public is going to support. The surrendercrats have dug this hole so deep that it will take a long hard fight to fix the problem. However, if they ever want to be taken seriously by the legions of irrational voters they need to stand up for their positions and fight back. Appeasement only encourages bullies. WW2 is a glaring example of how well that policy tends to work.

Taken seriously by the legions of irrational voters? What, you mean like getting not just a 'wave' election that sweeps them back into power after 12 years in the shitter, but maintaining that popularity well into 2007, an unheard of feat, especially if they manage to hold the seats they got in 2006?

-What the fuck are you talking about? Do you think that the democratic congress is well liked or repected? Perhaps you should take another look at the polling data: http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm. You confuse fury at republicans with affection for democrats. I also fail to see how an utterly spineless democratic party helps them get reelected. Even if that were true, how is it worth while when the rule of law lies shreaded in the gutter?

-Rahm's move is a half measure at best. It has yet to even pass, it's a move by only one surrendercrat as opposed to a concerted effort by all the surrendercrats, and Cheney can probably just run out the clock anyhow. This isn't about throwing a screaming fit over what color the tax code book should be. Cheney flouted yet another major law! The appropriate thing to do is ARREST THE FUCKING CRIMINAL! The law is absolutely clear. It's only a matter of enforcement.

Arrest him? Can't. Have to impeach. And sorry, dumbass, but as you bleat on about how the Dems should have done more on the SCOTUS issue(And I think they should have, but whatever; you're so brainwashed into your idiocy you'll keep calling me an 'apologist' anyway), you should realize the GOP can do the exact same thing. And destroy any chance at impeachment.

Or, you stupid little half-wit, didn't know you that someone's already tried to impeach Cheney?

-Can you show me where the president or vice president gain immunity from arrest? Sure, you can impeach them, but who says that is necessary for anything other than removing them from office.
-You don't seem to realize that it matters WHAT congress uses extrodinary powers for. The GOP using them to defend a criminal executive is completely different from the democrats using them to enforce the rule of law.

-Don't be an idiot. Using your reasoning Bush could be killing peole in the street and you'd still advocate sitting on your hands due to fear of a potential voter backlash!

No matter how much you screech, it's still a slippery-slope fallacy.

-Oh yeah? Fear of voter backlash was the only reason cited for not taking action. I'm just using his own reasoning. He's welcome to backpedal by adding better criteria for such decisions whenever he likes. You know, criteria like: why such action was taken in the first place!

[SirNitram]

-Take you're red hearing strawman combo and shove it. I was just rebutting your idiotic idea that the democrats have no power. That has NOTHING to do with who is or isn't an appologist. My point that the democrats have and had plenty of power remains.

And yet the power they had before is the reason they can't get things done now. Your pathetic attempt to claim the Filibuster could have done more THEN, but cannot be an excuse NOW, when the GOP is using it with record regularity, is a flat out peice of bullshit. Run along, child.

-What the fuck are you talking about? Do you think that the democratic congress is well liked or repected? Perhaps you should take another look at the polling data: http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm. You confuse fury at republicans with affection for democrats. I also fail to see how an utterly spineless democratic party helps them get reelected. Even if that were true, how is it worth while when the rule of law lies shreaded in the gutter?

The rule of law is being rebuilt. Perhaps if you weren't so busy shrieking about apologists, you'd notice that subpeona's are getting results, corrupt GOPers are getting put on trial, and so forth. Of course, none of this is shown on Headline News as Glen Beck regurgitates stupidity, so you must miss it all.

As for whether the Congress is liked or not, doesn't matter. I'm talking about voter self-identification. The Dems continue to climb in numbers, the Reps continue to fall.

-Can you show me where the president or vice president gain immunity from arrest? Sure, you can impeach them, but who says that is necessary for anything other than removing them from office.

Jesus Christ, are you this stupid? Impeachment is the method to remove them from power, so you can convict them. Have you read the Constitution? Or are you just an ignoramus that bleats out at whatever you feel is insufficient?

-You don't seem to realize that it matters WHAT congress uses extrodinary powers for. The GOP using them to defend a criminal executive is completely different from the democrats using them to enforce the rule of law.

Ends Justify The Means, eh? Sorry, but if you actually respected the rule of law you screeched about in this very post, you'd respect the fact there are processes, and like it or not, they have to be followed. You're just an upset little child.

-Oh yeah? Fear of voter backlash was the only reason cited for not taking action. I'm just using his own reasoning. He's welcome to backpedal by adding better criteria for such decisions whenever he likes. You know, criteria like: why such action was taken in the first place!

'Using your reasoning, it'll continue all the way to murder!' You just recited the textbook case of Slippery Slope Fallacy.

Let's review. You don't know what Congress can do. You think the Filibuster was enough to stop everything the GOP did that you don't like, but it obviously can't stop the Dems now. You don't know what Impeachment is. You think the Rule Of Law doesn't matter if it accomplishes the right ends.

You sound like the GOP.