Vermont Votes to Impeach Bush/Cheney

[niftydrifty]

When Vermont Governor Jim Douglas, a Republican with reasonably close ties to President Bush, asked if there was any additional business to be considered at the town meeting he was running in Middlebury, Ellen McKay popped up and proposed the impeachment of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

The governor was not amused. As moderator of the annual meeting, he tried to suggest that the proposal to impeach -- along with another proposal to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq -- could not be voted on.

But McKay, a program coordinator at Middlebury College, pressed her case. And it soon became evident that the crowd at the annual meeting shared her desire to hold the president to account.

So Douglas backed down.

Link

 

[reaganburch]

When Vermont Governor Jim Douglas, a Republican with reasonably close ties to President Bush, asked if there was any additional business to be considered at the town meeting he was running in Middlebury, Ellen McKay popped up and proposed the impeachment of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

The governor was not amused. As moderator of the annual meeting, he tried to suggest that the proposal to impeach -- along with another proposal to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq -- could not be voted on.

But McKay, a program coordinator at Middlebury College, pressed her case. And it soon became evident that the crowd at the annual meeting shared her desire to hold the president to account.

So Douglas backed down.

Link

Vermont...

The state that refuses to pass Jessica's law. With Judges who believes that giving probation to child rapists are appropriate sentences...

Apparently meaningless angry rhetoric is more important than passing real legislation that protects children in Vermont...

Everything that comes from that state is just white noise to me...

 

[Goobieman]

Talk about misleading headlines....

The attendees of a town meeting in one VT town (population 8183 ) voted to impeach them -- as if their vote has any meaning.

 

[aps]

It appers that it was more than one town. This article says that 29 towns voted to impeach Bush/Cheney.

Twenty-nine towns have approved calls for impeachment investigations, according to the Rutland Herald and Times Argus and Dan DeWalt, a Newfane select board member who organized the impeachment resolution drive. The towns of Dorset and Stamford rejected the resolution, and moderators in some other towns blocked it from being considered, according to DeWalt, who campaigned across Vermont with anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan last weekend to drum up support for the measures.

In Vermont, "Impeach Bush" talk dominates Town Meeting Day - International Herald Tribune

I don't know what to make of all this. :unsure13:

 

[niftydrifty]

The attendees of a town meeting in one VT town (population 8183 ) voted to impeach them -- as if their vote has any meaning.

Read the article. More than one town. More than 30 towns, in fact.

More links.

Interesting to see that some here have a disdainful attitude toward Democracy.

 

[reaganburch]

It appers that it was more than one town. This article says that 29 towns voted to impeach Bush/Cheney.



I don't know what to make of all this. :unsure13:

Individual towns have no power to call for impeachment do they? That can only be done in the House, is that correct?

If it is, then what you can make of it is people just spouting off angry rhetoric, which is their right...

However, like I mentioned in post #2, you'd think their priorities would be different... but, I guess their priorites is meaningless rhetoric over important work like passing legislation to protect children from predators...

BTW, I hope your pregnancy is going great for you!!!

 

[Hatuey]

Read the article. More than one town. More than 30 towns, in fact.

More links.

Interesting to see that some here have a disdainful attitude toward Democracy.

They make a point. A few towns in Vermont can't do much when it comes to impeaching the president.

 

[Goobieman]

It appers that it was more than one town. This article says that 29 towns voted to impeach Bush/Cheney.
I don't know what to make of all this. :unsure13:

Its as significant as 30 towns in Utah voting to impeach Clinton.

 

[aps]

Individual towns have no power to call for impeachment do they? That can only be done in the House, is that correct?

If it is, then what you can make of it is people just spouting off angry rhetoric, which is their right...

However, like I mentioned in post #2, you'd think their priorities would be different... but, I guess their priorites is meaningless rhetoric over important work like passing legislation to protect children from predators...

BTW, I hope your pregnancy is going great for you!!!

I definitely agree with you about their priorities. One of the things I cannot stand about liberals is how generous they tend to be with criminals. I mean WTF?

Pregnancy going very well. I have been very fortunate with respect to NOT having negative/tough symptoms. Thanks for checking in.

 

[niftydrifty]

They make a point. A few towns in Vermont can't do much when it comes to impeaching the president.

They make a point that they disagree with these people, that is all.

Our nation is a form of a Democracy. This means that we have a representative government. People like you and me, and the people in Vermont, elect officials in government to represent them.

According to a Roper Center Poll in 2006, 25% of adults in the US favor impeachment of George W. Bush. However, practically no one in Congress is in favor of impeachment. And Bush's popularity and approval rating have sunk considerably since 2006.

It's amusing to me that this talk of impeachment is dismissed as "angry rhetoric." If spouting angry rhetoric is everyone's right, it is likewise Reaganburch's right to make a nonpoint about emotional tone, and to toss out red herrings. Bush is impeachable. He and his administration have broken the law in several instances. I demonstrated this fact recently in a true debate.

So what can the people in Vermont do? They can make their opinions known. They can state the case for or against. The movement could then perhaps pick up momentum. This movement could then perhaps be noticed by Congress. Perhaps Congress could show an interest in representing the people.

 

[niftydrifty]

Its as significant as 30 towns in Utah voting to impeach Clinton.

LOL! Not really. Clinton was not nearly as impeachable as Bush. Furthermore, the "bring up Clinton" retort is rather tired, don'chya think? It's a comparison. It makes no sense. Totally different circumstances and actions. And completely offtopic.

Are they right? That's what I'd like to hear more about.

 

[reaganburch]

They make a point that they disagree with these people, that is all.

Our nation is a form of a Democracy. This means that we have a representative government. People like you and me, and the people in Vermont, elect officials in government to represent them.

According to a Roper Center Poll in 2006, 25% of adults in the US favor impeachment of George W. Bush. However, practically no one in Congress is in favor of impeachment. And Bush's popularity and approval rating have sunk considerably since 2006.

It's amusing to me that this talk of impeachment is dismissed as "angry rhetoric." If spouting angry rhetoric is everyone's right, it is likewise Reaganburch's right to make a nonpoint about emotional tone, and to toss out red herrings. Bush is impeachable. He and his administration have broken the law in several instances. I demonstrated this fact recently in a true debate.

So what can the people in Vermont do? They can make their opinions known. They can state the case for or against. The movement could then perhaps pick up momentum. This movement could then perhaps be noticed by Congress. Perhaps Congress could show an interest in representing the people.

How is it a red herring?

 

[niftydrifty]

One of the things I cannot stand about liberals is how generous they tend to be with criminals. I mean WTF?

agreed!

The Raw Story | Pelosi: Impeachment 'off the table'

Democrats Won't Try To Impeach President

 

[niftydrifty]

However, like I mentioned in post #2, you'd think their priorities would be different... but, I guess their priorites is meaningless rhetoric over important work like passing legislation to protect children from predators...

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

Fallacy: Red Herring

I'm working hard for your education, RB.

 

[reaganburch]

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

Fallacy: Red Herring

I'm working hard for your education, RB.

Yeah, it's that damn Governor Clinton education, me being from Arkansas & all.... yawn

It's not a red herring, it's perspective... Obviously, all these towns can do is express their outrage, their outrage at Bush needing to be impeached... so, I'm comparing THAT with their LACK of outrage with Jessica's Law not being even considered. Whether you agree or disagree with it being angry rhetoric is not germaine to the point at hand.

Now, a question that isn't considered is how long would it take if Congress started up, today, March 7, 2007, impeachment proceedings to it's fruition and then the likelihood of it succeeding. I don't know how long it would take, but I can tell you that the likelihood of it succeeding is probably slim to none... therefore, they're just yelling at the rain... If that's the case, then all they're doing is getting their blood pressure up to bang their hands against a wall... and in perspective, perhaps, just perhaps they'd like to take up issues that are more pressing, like Jessica's Law... I could have picked a number of things... that's just the first thing that popped in my head...

So, I don't see it as a red herring, I see it as perspective and noting that their priorities are out-of-whack, if you will...

 

[FierceEnigma12z]

Lol, I still don't understand why Democrats on this board can't comprehend that when Conservatives or whoever use Clinton it's to make an EXAMPLE and COMPARISON not as a "let's put Clinton in and try to change the subject" tactic.

It's seriously NOT THAT HARD to understand.Sheesh.

 

[niftydrifty]

It's seriously not that hard to understand that FierceEnigma12z has nothing to add to the topic other than an ad hominem swipe at niftydrifty.

cmon, people. this is weak.

"they sound angry"

"it doesn't do anything"

"what about Jessica's law?"

"what about Utah and Clinton?"

 

[Goobieman]

It's not a red herring, it's perspective... Obviously, all these towns can do is express their outrage, their outrage at Bush needing to be impeached... so, I'm comparing THAT with their LACK of outrage with Jessica's Law not being even considered. Whether you agree or disagree with it being angry rhetoric is not germaine to the point at hand.

Exactly.
The "red herring" argument is dependent on this...

2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).

...being true.

As you said, it's perspective, and as such, its relevant -- if this story had surfaced out of Utah in 1998, those that find meaning in this story now would dismiss it as meaningless partisan rhetoric.

 

[niftydrifty]

Wowee. Hey look, Vermont also passed a bill legalizing assisted suicide. They are clearly anti-life. Their priorities are totally out-of-whack. Therefore, they're wrong about impeachment, too.

:roll:

The problem with this "perspective" BS is that it ignores the reason why. It doesn't directly engage the topic. Why are they wrong?

 

[reaganburch]

Wowee. Hey look, Vermont also passed a bill legalizing assisted suicide. They are clearly anti-life. Their priorities are totally out-of-whack. Therefore, they're wrong about impeachment, too.

:roll:

The problem with this "perspective" BS is that it ignores the reason why. It doesn't directly engage the topic. Why are they wrong?

Be glib, sarcastic & patronizing all you want, it's still a valid argument...

Vermont passed a bill legalizing assisted suicide? Good... I actually believe in that...

I believe impeachment talk is a waste of time because it's not going to happen. You mentioned that 25% of adults believe in impeaching President Bush. The flip side of that coin is that 75% of adults DON'T believe in impeaching President Bush. It's their right to talk about impeachment and hell, even vote for it I guess... It doesn't matter because it carries NO weight.... They can let Leahy and the rest of the Vermont Congressional Delegation know that they favor impeachment, but if Congress decides not to do anything about it... WHAT'S THE POINT??? How about getting some REAL work, some IMPORTANT work done for the people of Vermont?

Pelosi has said herself that impeachment is off the table, that there is more important work to be done for the American people and for this... I agree with her...

Whether he deserves to be impeached or not is completely irrelevant to THIS topic...

 

[OKgrannie]

They make a point. A few towns in Vermont can't do much when it comes to impeaching the president.

movement to impeach George W. Bush: Information from Answers.com

"Individual citizens
A Minnesota-based impeachment group, has researched a method for impeaching the president using a little known and rarely used part of the Rules of the House of Representatives ("Jefferson’s Manual").[19] This document states, "In the House of Representatives there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion." These include "charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination ([U.S. House Precendents: Hinds] III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 249G, 2499, 2515; VI, 552)." This method, as opposed to other more well-known methods, actually empowers individual citizens to initiate the impeachment process themselves."

 

[niftydrifty]

Whether he deserves to be impeached or not is completely irrelevant to THIS topic...

Oh really? and somehow, Jessica's Law is?

I believe impeachment talk is a waste of time because it's not going to happen. You mentioned that 25% of adults believe in impeaching President Bush. The flip side of that coin is that 75% of adults DON'T believe in impeaching President Bush.

Uh, correction, "didn't believe." That poll was from 2006. "Was from" = past tense.

It's their right to talk about impeachment and hell, even vote for it I guess... It doesn't matter because it carries NO weight.... They can let Leahy and the rest of the Vermont Congressional Delegation know that they favor impeachment, but if Congress decides not to do anything about it... WHAT'S THE POINT???

Easy. If, if, if. There would be a point if Congress decided to do something about it.

How about getting some REAL work, some IMPORTANT work done for the people of Vermont?

You disagree with them, and I disagree with you. Impeachment is important because I believe that criminals should be prosecuted. I believe the Constitution should be upheld. You, obviously, don't.

You seem to look at the world in terms of either/or. The thought seemingly hasn't occurred to you, but people can pursue impeachment, AND do other work, too.

 

[Hatuey]

movement to impeach George W. Bush: Information from Answers.com

"Individual citizens
A Minnesota-based impeachment group, has researched a method for impeaching the president using a little known and rarely used part of the Rules of the House of Representatives ("Jefferson’s Manual").[19] This document states, "In the House of Representatives there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion." These include "charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination ([U.S. House Precendents: Hinds] III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 249G, 2499, 2515; VI, 552)." This method, as opposed to other more well-known methods, actually empowers individual citizens to initiate the impeachment process themselves."

Wow...I guess I was wrong...the only problem with this is....if he is impeached...who becomes president?

*cues creepy penguin anthem as clue*

 

[niftydrifty]

Topic title: "Vermont Votes to Impeach Bush/Cheney"

Things would definitely be looking up with Pelosi as POTUS.

 

[reaganburch]

Oh really? and somehow, Jessica's Law is?


Uh, correction, "didn't believe." That poll was from 2006. "Was from" = past tense.

Easy. If, if, if. There would be a point if Congress decided to do something about it.

You disagree with them, and I disagree with you. Impeachment is important because I believe that criminals should be prosecuted. I believe the Constitution should be upheld. You, obviously, don't.

You seem to look at the world in terms of either/or. The thought seemingly hasn't occurred to you, but people can pursue impeachment, AND do other work, too.

Look skippy, don't put words in my mouth that I don't believe the Constitution should be upheld... People CAN multi-task and if that's the case for the people of Vermont, then it makes them look WORSE...

I explained before about Jessica's Law, perhaps you didn't want to accept it... It was an EXAMPLE about perspective...

It WAS from 2006... you being a smart-*** about it being 'past tense' doesn't make MY argument any LESS correct... as a matter of fact, it enhances it...

And since you're obviously more concerned about being a dick about all of this as opposed to debating the topic reasonably and calmly(I haven't been sarcastic nor patronizing once towards you mind you), then I will move on...