CA, IL and VT residents

[Darth_Anton]

Mods, please read before judging. Please remove if necessary.

I was surprised to learn that state governments have the power to draft presidential impeachment recommendations and submit them to the federal congress. At that point, congress must stop everything they're doing, debate the issue, and I believe put impeachment to a vote before addressing any other issue.

As we speak, CA, IL and VT are drafting such a recommendation based on the several issues that plague the current administration (wire taps, leaking classified information, intelligence manipulation etc....) In my own state of CA, there's a potential hold up because our legislators are considering the personal impact this will have on themselves once this happens. In other-words, it may not be worth their time if the fallout after the official recommendation prevents them for getting state business done.

Now, the reason why I bring this up is because we all have a responsibility to make our voices heard on this very important issue. Do you support impeachment? Are you against it? Call or e-mail your local congressmen (state, not federal) as I did and let them know what you think. Then, tell your friends. Enough people hounding them either way could sway their vote.

Lastly, please do not give your opinion either way. I'm not here to voice my opinion on the subject, just to inform people that they can take part in a historic decision. Whether you support impeachment or not, you're doing a disservice by de-railing this thread as you are preventing others who think the same as you from taking part.

[Darth Slothus]

There are rules here like no 'politics anything' so, while I would like to comment here I shouldn't but I at least think this thread and the gas prices thread, pet peeves thread ect should be locked up(you really can't talk about gas prices for long without political slip=guilty-and it's been proven several times in THAT thread).

Honestly having a 'no politics' rule here is an honorable idea of a rule here. Unfortunately, it's seriously ineffective. I've seen so many breaches of that rule in my time here at JD(less than a year) and from what I noticed(including yesterday..) that you can have 2 differnet folks in here take the same 'political' stance on something in different threads and only one gets commented on-depends on your popularity I guess . I'm not ready to judge folks based shallowly on their political views/ would only disagree/agree with them. Funny how so many make a 'please refrain from politics here' comment and just assume they think they are a moderator here and they're not. I think any kind of thread here having ANY kind of political chance for comment should be disallowed. Why can't we do that? because you then would have to eliminate Watto's pretty much . So I think there should be a space allotted for politics..then if any thing political mentioned anywhere else than it can go to (be moved to the political thread).I think if we did this that monitoring would HAVE to be a little more lenient considering the heat some political discussions can bring.  Either that or more fair consistency moderating political comments(ANYTHING about our Pres. or other office holding official is political)..places like the gas prices thread, stupid **** from the internet thread, ect.

Just my ideas,suggestions,2 cents ect. No harm intended

[Rob]

Honestly having a 'no politics' rule here is an honorable idea of a rule here. Unfortunately, it's seriously ineffective. I've seen so many breaches of that rule in my time here at JD(less than a year) and from what I noticed(including yesterday..) that you can have 2 differnet folks in here take the same 'political' stance on something in different threads and only one gets commented on-depends on your popularity I guess .

Every now and then, we'll let something political go as long as it doesn't turn into a republican vs. democrat kind of thing.  We don't want to be the iron clad destroyers of all threads serious in nature.  So things that are too overtly political get shut down, and the things - like this thread, which was posed as a call to arms no matter what your beliefs are, stay open.

But everyone watches this type of thing to make sure it doesn't cross any lines.

It's not a popularity contest.

[JoshEEE]

Didn't Clinton get impeached?  How exactly did that hurt him?

[ruiner]

It tarnished his reputation.  Wouldn't you agree?

[Tracy]

It tarnished his reputation.  Wouldn't you agree?

No, his actions, which led to the call for his impeachment, is what tarnished his reputation.  Don't blame the messenger.

[Darth Slothus]

His reputation so tarnished? So...he's allowed to be a reputable fund raiser/spokesman for post hurricane Katrina?

I thought if your reputation tarnished your pretty much tucked away out of the limelight.

[jjks]

His reputation so tarnished? So...he's allowed to be a reputable fund raiser/spokesman for post hurricane Katrina?

I thought if your reputation tarnished your pretty much tucked away out of the limelight.

You left this out:   

Odd.

[Matt]

jjks, let's not turn this into another 20:1 trap thread, okay?

 

[Darth Slothus]

crickets

[JoshEEE]

It tarnished his reputation.  Wouldn't you agree?

Not to me. I thought the whole thing was a ridiculous witch hunt to begin with.

His reputation was tarnished for other reasons that had nothing to do with his impeachment in my eyes.



Which brings me back to the topic at hand.  GW being impeached wouldn't save us from another 2 years of him.  I'd certainly think his crimes against our country are a lot worse than getting a blow job and lying about it, but I doubt he'll ever have to answer for them.

[Rob]

Let's all just call our representatives and tell them how we feel about George Bush and the idea of him getting impeached.

[ruiner]

Why do you come here to start ****?

[Rob]

Ah hell.