GOP can't come to concensus on immigration

#253
#253
Looks like Nancy really took this "off the table".

On May 10, 2006, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) indicated she was not interested in pursuing impeachment and had taken it "off the table", reiterating this phrase on November 8, 2006 after the election.[9][10] In July 2007, Pelosi stated that she "would probably advocate" impeaching Bush if she were not in the House nor Speaker of the House.[11]

On December 8, 2006 (the last day of the 109th Congress), then-Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) submitted a resolution, H. Res. 1106. The bill expired along with the 109th Congress.[12]

John Conyers brought up the subject of impeachment on the July 8, 2007 broadcast of This Week with George Stephanopoulos,[13] stating:


We're hoping that as the cries for the removal of both Cheney and Bush now reach 46 percent and 58 percent, respectively, for impeachment, that we could begin to become a little bit more cooperative, if not even amicable, in trying to get to the truth of these matters.

Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich's major point in the Democratic Presidential Debate on October 30, 2007 was that Bush and Cheney should be impeached for the Iraq war.[14][15] On November 6, 2007, Kucinich introduced a resolution to impeach Vice President Cheney in the House of Representatives.[16]

In November 2007, Joe Biden, then a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, stated that he would move to impeach if President Bush were to bomb Iran without first gaining congressional approval.[17] However, no such bombing occurred during the rest of Bush's term.

On June 9, 2008, Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), introduced a resolution, H.Res. 1258, to impeach president George W. Bush, which included 35 counts in the articles of impeachment. At the end of the evening on June 10, Kucinich offered a motion to refer HRes 1258 to the House Judiciary Committee. On June 11, the House voted 251-166 to send the resolution to the Committee.[18]

On July 14, 2008, Kucinich introduced a new impeachment resolution (H.Res. 1345) limited to a single count.[19][20]
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#258
#258
So if I'm reading this right - Pelosi made her statement when MINORITY leader. Statement has no impact since the minority could not bring it forward anyway.

When she was MAJORITY leader it was brought forward for vote and vote referred it to committee. She either did not or could not stop it. To top it off, she completely bailed on the vote. (If she said it was off the table you'd think she'd vote against it).

But somehow she had more integrity and control of the situation than Boehner who has said it's out and is MAJORITY leader and NO ONE from the majority party has brought forward ANYTHING about impeachment.

Classic
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#260
#260
volinbham said:
So if I'm reading this right - Pelosi made her statement when MINORITY leader. Statement has no impact since the minority could not bring it forward anyway.

When she was MAJORITY leader it was brought forward for vote and vote referred it to committee. She either did not or could not stop it. To top it off, she completely bailed on the vote. (If she said it was off the table you'd think she'd vote against it).

But somehow she had more integrity and control of the situation than Boehner who has said it's out and is MAJORITY leader and NO ONE from the majority party has brought forward ANYTHING about impeachment.

Classic
Click to expand...

You forgot it's a fund raising tactic.
 
#261
#261
volinbham said:
So if I'm reading this right - Pelosi made her statement when MINORITY leader. Statement has no impact since the minority could not bring it forward anyway.

When she was MAJORITY leader it was brought forward for vote and vote referred it to committee. She either did not or could not stop it. To top it off, she completely bailed on the vote. (If she said it was off the table you'd think she'd vote against it).

But somehow she had more integrity and control of the situation than Boehner who has said it's out and is MAJORITY leader and NO ONE from the majority party has brought forward ANYTHING about impeachment.

Classic
Click to expand...

Pelosi's INTENT was to shut it down. See? That's what really matters here. Her actions are inconsequential as long as her intentions are correct.

VN's instiGATOR is a propaGATOR of lies and a castiGATOR of anything non-liberal. A promulGATOR of deceit and a naviGATOR of same.
 
Last edited:
#262
#262
McDad said:
Pelosi's INTENT was to shut it down. See? That's what really matters here. Her actions are inconsequential as long as her intentions are correct.
Click to expand...

Haven't you heard, dems are judged on intent not actual results.
 
#265
#265
LG...just stop. You're making yourself look foolish. While I enjoy watching you shriek like a spoiled teenage girl, you are making yourself look like a moron. Have a little self respect.
 
#266
#266
DC_Vol said:
LG...just stop. You're making yourself look foolish. While I enjoy watching you shriek like a spoiled teenage girl, you are making yourself look like a moron. Have a little self respect.
Click to expand...

Why should he stop now? This is kinda going down as one of those "epic" threads.

I'm waiting on an answer to what Hog and I posted myself.

"Well, technically..."
 
#268
#268
Grand Vol said:
Hey, you want to play the semantics game. You stated she killed it before it went to committee. I mean, that's what you said so I was pointing out that you were incorrect.

I mean, we are playing the technicality game, right? And technically she didn't kill it when it was introduced. And furthermore, she technically didn't have control over her own party since she, as Speaker, should have been able to prevent the introduction in the first place by making a simple phone call and saying "don't do it or else."

And you can't tell me she didn't know it wasn't coming up. Because that would just prove she was ignorant as well as out of control of her side of the House.
Click to expand...


You're right. I overstated her acts of opposition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#270
#270
volinbham said:
So if I'm reading this right - Pelosi made her statement when MINORITY leader. Statement has no impact since the minority could not bring it forward anyway.

When she was MAJORITY leader it was brought forward for vote and vote referred it to committee. She either did not or could not stop it. To top it off, she completely bailed on the vote. (If she said it was off the table you'd think she'd vote against it).

But somehow she had more integrity and control of the situation than Boehner who has said it's out and is MAJORITY leader and NO ONE from the majority party has brought forward ANYTHING about impeachment.

Classic
Click to expand...

I can't believe I'm the one attacking Boehner here, but at any rate how about this question: " why not just say no, we will not entertain impeachment?"

What's wrong with that ?

And out of curiosity does anybody here REALLY think he deserves to be? I feel like that's so over the top.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#272
#272
lawgator1 said:
I can't believe I'm the one attacking Boehner here, but at any rate how about this question: " why not just say no, we will not entertain impeachment?"

What's wrong with that ?

And out of curiosity does anybody here REALLY think he deserves to be? I feel like that's so over the top.
Click to expand...

How about having the dignity to let this thread die after making a complete fool of an ass of yourself in it?
 
#273
#273
lawgator1 said:
I can't believe I'm the one attacking Boehner here, but at any rate how about this question: " why not just say no, we will not entertain impeachment?"

What's wrong with that ?

And out of curiosity does anybody here REALLY think he deserves to be? I feel like that's so over the top.
Click to expand...

The same reason we've been saying all along.

If something was to come up later that was clearly an impeachable offense, the left could (and likely would) point to Boehner and say "Look! He LIED!"

As the old saying goes, never say never.
 
#274
#274
lawgator1 said:
I can't believe I'm the one attacking Boehner here, but at any rate how about this question: " why not just say no, we will not entertain impeachment?"

What's wrong with that ?

And out of curiosity does anybody here REALLY think he deserves to be? I feel like that's so over the top.
Click to expand...

He's not going to. As I've stated before, he's an awful leader. That's what the phoney law suit business is all about. He's covering up his own inability to lead by punting to the courts.

As for the question are there grounds for impeachment, the answer is yes. Is it politically viable? No. JB should move on to tearing down his own base and telling us about his hidden agenda to stop Obama's executive abuse. Meanwhile, Obama will be emboldened and we'll soon have a lot of poor, Mexican, reliably Democratic voters on the government take.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#275
#275
Orange_Crush said:
How about having the dignity to let this thread die after making a complete fool of an ass of yourself in it?
Click to expand...

The original pont was that the GOP couldn't come up with an approach to immigration. That is still absolutely true.

And it is also still the case that the impeachment talk is silly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top