When There Comes A Time That One Finds Themselves Standing In The Center Of The Battlefield;

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

and they lift up their head to see that it is John Conyers whose chest their rifle is aimed squarely at; then it is probably a good time for one to recognize that they have lost all sense of reason and sanity and are fighting on the right side no longer.

That's all I have to say.


I got your back John. I got your back.

[Raven]

1. K&R. And I've got yours! n/t

[NoPasaran]

2. Amen to that

We know who our real friends are.

[bryant69]

3. Agreed

Take a moment and get some perspective - Conyers is a good man who's done good for a long time; give him the benefit of the doubt.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[G_Leo_Criley]

4. k&r

thank you for posting this OMC

:kick:

glc

[KittyWampus]

5. Flying An Airplane In Fog Without Instruments. In the West Wing tv program an old GOP

senator (Paleocon) spoke to Bartlett about keeping ones moral compass in Washington.

He likened it to those who fly an airplane into fog without being able to read instruments. They think they are flying level to the horizon but end up smacking into the ground.

Seems there are a lot of DU'ers who hear the words "impeach now" and "out of Iraq now" and will blindly follow that direction without using their power of discrimination.

[Lerkfish]

6. I'm always amused by the assertion that anyone who disagrees with you is insane

it says so much more about you than them.

I would posit that allowing criminals to go free because its politically "messy" is not a sane option.

[KittyWampus]

7. and prematurely trying to seize criminals before you've laid the ground for successful conviction

is stupid. Especially when the criminals have a well established protection net.

[Lerkfish]

9. Because I'm pro-impeachment, you assume I don't want to investigate or gather evidence?

why do you assume that?

[bryant69]

8. It's pretty common around here however

Certainly people who agree with you haven't hesitated to characterize those of us who support Democratic Congress Critters harshly.

Bryant

[Lerkfish]

17. and did your feelings get hurt? is that reason the issue cannot be debated rationally?

ok, lets remove all emotion from the issue:

Do you believe impeachable offenses have occurred?

[bryant69]

19. No, my feeelings did not get hurt

It is interesting that after chiding someone for harsh language you immediately defend the use of harsh language - I guess it depends who's employing it, eh?

Impeachable offenses have likely occurred.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Lerkfish]

20. then, if they have likely occurred,

do you think those criminals should be brought to justice, or given a pass?

and, btw; I said I was "amused".

[bryant69]

21. I think they should be brought to justice

Boy life sure is simple when you boil it down this way isn't it?

I eagerly await the next (and somewhat obvious question).

Bryant

[Lerkfish]

23. some issues ARE simple.

the question comes down to whether we are a nation of laws, governed by the constitution, or a nation of political expediency.

there are many rationalizations for not impeaching, but none of them address the core, simple issue: have crimes been committed?

[bryant69]

26. That is because the founders, in their wisdom, made

Impeachment a political process.

But I've answered your questions, here's one for you; do you think Impeachment, if Nancy Pelosi put it in motion this moment, would lead to removal from office? Please answer forthrightly rather than taking the standard "That's not the point" tack.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Lerkfish]

28. when have I not been forthright?

But you've asked me a question that I can give my opinion on, and still be wrong, because I cannot predict the future.
However, my forthright opinion is, I do think impeachment, if pursued, would lead to a removal from office.

Now, why do I believe that?

Because the administration has shown they will refuse to comply with normal supbeonas, and they refuse to allow the DOJ to charge them with contempt.
Therefore, the ONLY way to bring evidence of their crimes out in the open is to impeach. I believe once the media is forced to cover documentation of the crimes committed, or if a constitutional crisis is forced by impeachment, the resulting backlash will either result in criminal charges leading to removal from office, or resignations, which accomplishes the same end result.

Censure will never unearth evidence, and nothing short of impeachment will.

[bryant69]

29. Ok well than that is where we differ.

I will note that your belief that Impeachment will lead to removal from office is not universal; by my experience it is not even common. Most seem to accept that Impeachment won't actually go anywhere, even if Democrats get behind it.

I agree with that assessment. I don't believe that Impeachment will lead anywhere. It will bog down congress even more than it is already bogged down, and House Republicans will stand steadfast with the President. So I support Conyers and Pelosi and others in their call not to impeach at this time.

Bryant

[Lerkfish]

32. I answered your question as you asked it, but if I may point out a different issue:

I do not believe success of impeachment is the only litmus for pursuing it. The very reasons you state for why you think it will not succeed are exactly the reasons why it should be pursued: because the president is acting above the law with impugnity. Is it right to say that once he has grabbe absolute power illegally, we should not try to stop him? In other words, the very nature of the crime protects the criminal?

I believe there is a sworn duty to impeach if impeachable offenses have occurred. No ifs, ands or buts. Its a SWORN duty to uphold the constitution.

Just as I would not consider a prosecutor right to not bring rapists to trial because conviction percentages are traditionally low...I think a good prosecutor worries about whether a crime has been committed and his DUTY to prosecute that crime. Sure, a rape trial has a low chance of conviction, but rapists never brought to trial are automatically not convicted, 100%, and additionally, they are simply emboldened to continue raping victims.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. And I'm Always Amused By Idiotic Assertions That I Think Anyone Who Disagrees With Me Is Insane.

Whether or not someone does or doesn't agree with me has not an iota to do with my interpretation of their sanity. To say so would be quite simply dumb.

I judge on merits and actions. Pointing the rhetorical gun at John Conyer's chest is just, quite simply, insane.

It is not I who is guilty of the closed minded lockstep mentality here. It is beyond amusing that you are asserting such. Do you not have mirrors in your residence?

[Lerkfish]

16. "lost all sense of reason and sanity"

:shrug:

direct quote from your OP.


"closed minded lockstep mentality"? in what way am I that, and why are you accusing me of such?

may I humbly suggest you are getting yourself wound up way too tight. Take a break, walk away from the keyboard and return when you can rationally debate issues.

[Forkboy]

30. Jesus,don't say this:

Take a break, walk away from the keyboard and return when you can rationally debate issues.

He may never come back.

[Lerkfish]

33. LOL!

sorry, but that was funny.

:)

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

11. OMC, you are a Conyers loyalist. That's really sweet.

:hug: MKJ

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. I'm A Loyalist To That Which Is Reasonable, Rational, Sane, Logical And Honorable. Nothing More.

[Lerkfish]

18. You're intentionally confusing two issues

1. Conyers is a great representative

but that is not the same, nor is a counterargument to:

2. citizens have a right to express their opinion on how the govt. is governed.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. It Is You Confusing Issues. You Seem To Demand They Have A Right To Express Their Opinion, Yet That

we don't.

I and others are expressing our opinions with the same rights that they do. We don't like their opinion and you don't like ours. Well deal with it.

You're entitled all you want to agree with their ridiculous positions and claim mine is in fact the ridiculous position. But I'm fairly confident that it is them who has lost all sense of reasoning, logic and rationality, not I.

[Lerkfish]

57. no, you're the one making a false dichotomy

It is possible to do all three: think conyers is great, think Cindy is great, and think the right to peacably assemble is great.

you're the one who is confused and trying to make those three things mutually exclusive.

again, I am going to suggest you go somewhere, have a drink, unwind, and come back to us with a little more rationality.

[Enrique]

12. and when the gun they're holding is named Rosa Parks

then I'm not sure they should be allowed to hold any kind of gun.

[bonito]

14. Like a scene in braveheart

No scene is as telling as when Wallace is betrayed by Robert the Bruce on the battlefield. As the gravity (of having the man who could unite Scotland betray him) weighs on him, Gibson relates both his passion for freedom and his complete loss of all hope.

Unlike your pompous analogy.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. Awww, I'm Oh So Troubled That You Didn't Like It.

Was a perfectly fine analogy though.

Yours, however, was quite silly in comparison. Nice try though and all. :hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. John Conyers needs defending by turgid analogies?

Golly, a group of citizens urge a politician to impeach a president and are arrested for doing so.

"they have lost all reason and sanity and are fighting on the right side no longer".

Heard the same kind of crap in 1968 when unreasonable and insane people called for the end of a war started, directed, and rationalized by Democrats in office.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. Yeah Yeah Yeah Tierra, You Hate The Democrats. We Know, We Know.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. Well, you've moved beyond turgidity to NYAAAH, NYAAH.

Can I expect a statement that your big brother can beat up my big brother?

[truebrit71]

24. Me too.

K&R

[Bonobo]

25. You are a comedian. End of message.

[Puglover]

27. LOL!

Oh I can FEEL the love in this thread. Gives the phrase "You reap what you sow" new meaning...

[Forkboy]

31. I feel like I just walked into a scene from a John Wayne flick.

You definitely should have thrown the word "pilgrim" in there at least once or twice.

Conyers is cool.I bet he doesn't even mind this very much.I wouldn't.It's great to see America working like it's supposed to for a change,and if I were him I'd be thankful to see that,even if were directed towards me.The country is a far bigger issue than my own hurt feelings.I suspect Conyers is a good enough man to recognize the same.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. Who Are You To Say He Doesn't Mind It Much?

I would think the harassment and belittling definitely would affect him, if even a little. And ya know what? He doesn't deserve it. Not one, fucking, bit.

They have lost their fucking minds, plain and simple. Instead of targetting those which should be targetted, they are targeting one of the biggest allies they have and one of the most stand up representatives our party has ever had.

I have no reservations about calling it as I see it. And when looking objectively at the entire issue from all sides, it is quite readily ascertained that the protesters have completely lost their sense of reasoning and have lost any chance of being effective towards anything.

They are quite literally, out of their minds.

John doesn't deserve this bullshit from them. He just simply doesn't. I refuse to condone their insanity and unfair abuse towards someone as honorable as he is.

[Bonobo]

37. By capitalizing "He", it looks like you think Conyers is the Lord.

Hee hee. I like you. You make me laugh much.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. Way To Respond To Context Pal. That All You've Got? How Weak. n/t

[Bonobo]

48. Reread your own content. Substitute Jesus for Conyers. I'm serious.

It's kinda weird. You project upon him the Jesus Complex that you so clearly have yourself.

Sorry to see through you, but it's unavoidable unlesss you close your eyes, Mr. Mind Crime Sir.

[Forkboy]

40. How do you know he doesn't?

He's a wise man.I'm sure he knows what's going on,why it's going on,and what roles both sides are playing in the drama.Their audience isn't Conyers,and I trust he's smart enough to know and respect that.

Here's an analogy.In MLB an umpire will often throw a coach out for arguing with him.Quite often the coach is trying to get thrown out on purpose to fire up his team,and oftentimes the ump knows that and respects it,letting the coach vent and play his role before tossing him.Cindy is the coach,and the impeachment people are her team.Sometimes the coach getting tossed also fires up the crowd.The people on the fence about impeachment are the crowd.That's the two groups this exercise is directed at.In this case Conyer's role was the umpire,letting them make their case and giving them what they wanted by tossing them in front of the "crowd".

Imagine a Yankees fan going to Fenway and standing on the mound trying to rally the crowd.The only way he'd succeed would be to blow his head off.Yet at Yankee Stadium he has a far better chance of success.That's why Democrats get protested instead of Republicans.The chance of the message being heard is far greater with a similar group willing to listen than one that hates you outright and wont even piss on you if you're on fire.

Sometimes,people have roles to play for the show of others.This is one such instance,and even though it may not work with you,it may with someone else.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. I've Gotta Say:

Though I don't agree with your post and view things differently, I still was quite impressed by your reply and intellect. I think your reply was one of the best counter arguments I've seen yet and wanted to give you sincere compliments on it. I was expecting it to be a typical wiseass retort with no substance, but instead was quite pleasantly surprised to find that it was well thought out and with solid analogies.

It wasn't enough to change my mind, because I still have core disagreements with their methods and rhetoric, but I still think you made quite a persuasive argument and it was refreshing to read. I appreciated that.

[Forkboy]

47. Thank you.

There's a lot of things rattling around inside my head,I just rarely have the patience,concentration,or inclination to form them into anything beyond snark.

Thanks for taking it in the spirit it was intended.

[Virginia Dare]

54. Good point, it is just one big drama being played out..

Conyers was definitely taking one for the team.

[endarkenment]

41. Of course he deserves it.

Conyers decided to go along with Off the Table Pelosi. Bad decision. Back when our party was out of power in the House Conyers was holding rump impeachment hearings in the basement, given an opportunity to do the same with real subpoena power and real hearing rooms and full media attention he chose to be a team player instead. Bad decision. When our allies make bad decisions I am really thankful that there are people like Cindy Sheehan out there to publicly hold them accountible. It isn't a gun she pointed at Conyers, it was the glare of publicity.

[Jed Dilligan]

51. Boo fucking hoo.

The guy's paid to serve in Congress and he (sob sniff) actually had to deal with members of the public! How DEVASTATING!

:nopity:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. John Conyers is, like, Private Vasquez from Aliens.

He like totally rocks and stuff. And Cindy Sheehan is like that jerk from My Two Dads who does something bad but I don't remember what but Vasquez got killed and that totally sucked. Why does Cindy Sheehan want to help the aliens?

Game over, man, game over!

[Jed Dilligan]

44. Why do you identify with politicians so much?

As far as I'm concerned they should all be protested, attacked, harassed, and belittled at every turn. I expect nothing out of them unless they are treated this way. I could not care less how John Conyers or anyone in Congress "feels." They gave up their right to human feelings when they entered politics.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

45. Congrats On The Most Stupid Premise I've Ever Heard.

Welcome to my ignore list. There's only so much stupidity I can bear to see in one post.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Virginia Dare]

49. I guess in your eyes Cindy Sheehan has now given up hers..n/t

[Jed Dilligan]

50. Yes she has. She is politicking.

If you don't have the stomach for it, stay out of the game.

I don't understand why people are so emotional over this occurrence. Politicians get protested, protesters get arrested.

[Virginia Dare]

52. Agreed..

we'll see how this all plays out (the politicking part), but it's going to get a lot uglier.

[Jed Dilligan]

53. No matter how ugly it gets,

it cannot be as ugly as the issue at hand.

If a little teensy weensy microscopic micropixel microcosm of the ugliness that is the Iraq occupation lands on the desk of any Congressperson, I applaud the person who put it there.

[Evoman]

55. Lol...you should go to Conyers and relay your cowboy message.

Then we will set up bail money on DU to set you free one he gets your ass arrested :rofl:.

Anybody want to contribute to the Release OMC fund? No? C'mon...10 bucks? No? A quarter? 5 cents? Cool.

We'll get you a pack of smokes OMC, and a toothbrush you can make into a shiv.

[bobthedrummer]

56. Slightly OT post to a link regarding your username in the context of information warfare

"Electromagnetic Aspect of Mind Control: A Scientific Analysis" by Vlad N. Binhi
http://www.mindjustice.org/binhi.htm

Information warfare article by Col. Michael McKim USAFR (ret) note the use of pragmatic polarization "i.e.US/NOTUS"
"Reframing Perception-Space (P-space): A Quick Overview of a Unifying Concept"
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc/reframing-p-space.htm

I called Rep. Conyers office yesterday and stated that I am a registered voter and American citizen supporting HR 333, that he should proceed with the impeachment of Richard Cheney as soon as possible.

That's all I have to say in this thread.

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. It's easier to lean on reasonable people to get them to see.

It's harder to lean on the unreasonable. Just because it's harder doesn't imply that it's not more important. The protests need to be directed against those not already on our side - not to change their minds, but to give blame where blame is due.