It's some arrogant bullshit to suggest that those here who oppose impeachment are 'conservative'

[bigtree]

. . . or, that those who don't favor moving to a partisan initiated impeachment in this Congress aren't 'progressive?'

Who asked these people, who try and label us, to put us in these little ideological boxes, anyway? What a petty game. And it is a game. A destructive, childish, name-calling game.

If they knew ANYTHING worth a damn about people at all, they'd realize that we're entitled to our own definition of our own ideology -- as we're entitled to to pick and choose which strategies are best for advancing that ideology.

Many folks who don't accept that an impeachment in this Congress will work as advertised have just as much conviction and are just as committed to hold this administration accountable as proponents. What sense does it make to try and divide our party into camps based on strategy rather than intent? It's not as if proponents of impeachment have any historical basis to argue that their proposition is infallible, although some are clearly are convinced that their course is superior to all others.

Any of the proponents of impeachment in this Congress have a perfect right to believe that they're somehow more virtuous than those who think their plan will fail and refuse to support it. But, in my view, they are clearly not. I take a backseat to very few in my opposition and efforts to hold this administration accountable for their crimes and abuses. I don't believe an impeachment of the Executive in this Congress will be prudent or effective. And, I'll hold my head up high, thank you, satisfied that I've, at least, allowed proponents here their view without labeling and attempting to box them into some political corner that I've constructed for them.


By the way, the post I linked to has a laughable request that dissenters not post there. What a crock. I couldn't resist posting this.

Oh, and those who think they can label me and put me into one of their little ideological boxes because of my views on impeachment can "BITE ME."


That's it. I'm back out of here. (But if someone thinks my exit's an opportunity for them to run me into the ground here, forget it. I'm no wilting violet.)

[Sneaky Sailor]

1. Peace out

K & R

Ive been where youve been on a different issue...

[Zandor]

2. K & R

Open season on moderate Democrats.

[mike_c]

3. LOL-- dude, aren't you among the first to accuse third party voters...

...of "voting for republicans?"

[bigtree]

23. you have a star. Is it too much to ask that you back that up with some proof?

do a search. I've NEVER accused "third party voters of "voting for republicans"

Never.

[cali]

4. Spot on.

Cheers for this piece. And boos to all the sanctimony by those who think they have the right to label others under bullshit false pretenses. And that's from someone who supports impeachment.

Sorry to see you go. We need a diversity of voices here.

kicked and recommended.

[Moochy]

5. "we're entitled to to pick and choose"

No, no you are not. It's not a salad bar.
Respect of the rule of law is a non-optional progressive and democratic value.

Your intent is to ignore accountability. Hardly a strategy at all, more like a free pass for bushco.

[cali]

7. nice mindset.

So you get to decide on your little lonesome what constitutes respect for the rule of law? I don't think so.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[renie408]

11. Pretty much off topic here...

but I don't 'get' using Ignore. I don't think I could stand not knowing what everybody is saying, no matter how annoying I find it.

[cali]

14. It's been my observation that those who liberally use the ignore

button, are those who don't want to see any opposition to their viewpoint, and that makes their viewpoint, very narrow indeed.

[cali]

12. Seems like I hit a nerve for you to come back so fast and furious

with the sexist bullshit. "shrew"? A word ONLY used by dyed in the wool sexists. Good job showing your true colors.

[renie408]

8. I am assuming that you were all for the impeachment of Clinton, then.

He broke the law and lied under oath. Yes, I get that what Bush has done is FAR FAR worse than what Clinton did. But you have said that respect for the rule of law is non-optional.

I am not against impeachment. But I also understand that there are political ramifications that I have no clue about. So, on this one I am going to defer to the people who are there and hacking this whole thing out.

[Sneaky Sailor]

10. Nice Point n/t

[yodermon]

15. Clinton did not lie under oath.

He was very sleazy under oath, but he didn't lie.
His impeachment was purely and solely a political act.

[Sneaky Sailor]

16. Hmmmmm either he was having a relationship with the

woman or he was not.

[yodermon]

19. He baldface lied to the American People on TV.

He did not do so under oath.
Sleazy, yes.
Illegal, no.
Impeachable, apparently.

[renie408]

20. Can you get me a link for that?

I cannot find anything on Google that supports what you are saying, but tons to support him having lied during grand jury testimony.


http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/multimedia/timeline/9809/starr.report/grounds/g1.htm

[cali]

18. Oh, I think that's highly debatable.

Although I agree that his impeachment was nothing but bullshit revenge.

[yodermon]

21. *shrug* debate all you want. If he'd perjured himself, and

prosecutors had felt they could convict him for it, then he woulda been indicted for it. He wasn't.
Lots of political posturing, chest thumping, and impeaching, but no criminal indictment, even after leaving office.
Go fig.

*on edit* - i've researched it a bit and i stand corrected.. it's been adjudicated that he was "untruthful" in his testimony but he cut a deal to avoid prosecution. (disbarment in Arkansas, a fine, etc). http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/13may20041220/icreport.access.gpo.gov/lewinsky/sec4.pdf

so yer right it is "debateable" - I'm debating myself ;)

[tandot]

13. So, people who smoke pot can't be progressive?

If "Respect of the rule of law is a non-optional progressive and democratic value" ... why have there been so many threads bashing Law enforcement?

Or, are you saying you can "pick and choose" which laws are valid or invalid?

[cuke]

24. "Rule of Law" arguments are usually a smoke screen

Like in immigration. They want to punish undocumented aliens because "they broke the law" when they entered the US, but if you ask "So how about we change the law and make them legal?", they still have a problem

[tandot]

6. Thanks, bigtree.

We need more rational voices here on DU speaking out when either side is trying to put the other "in these little ideological boxes" ... but I think many have already given up.

:hi:

[Warren Stupidity]

17. How about: wrong-headed? nt.

[Enrique]

22. watch Bernie Sanders tangle with an impeachment advocate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EejpCPMSXV8

[TahitiNut]

25. Buh-bye.

:hi:

(again)

[HCE SuiGeneris]

26. Dammit!

The words ripped right out of my mouth and plastered in print already...

[TahitiNut]

28. !

:rofl:



Anybody know which ones are his? :dunce:

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[mudesi]

27. But it IS conservative

Just because the media has brainwashed 90% of the American public into thinking being conservative is "moderate", doesn't make it so.

Compared to the rest of the world, and American moderate is a conservative. The Democrats are a right wing party, or at least the ones who run it are.

[riqster]

31. I consider myself a centrist

... but anymore, my beliefs (which have not changed) make me hard left by current standards.

[baldguy]

30. You're merely misinformed.

You "know" that Bush can't be impeached. The Constitution doesn't require it (even though it does), impeachment is just a political dodge (it isn't), It's a waste of time - there are more important things to do (like the rule of law is meaningless, and political expediency is the ultimate arbiter), and we don't have the votes (which you can't really tell. Republicans are cowards. If they see the tide turning, they'll flee the party like rats.)