Comments on: Obama Poised To Reverse Bush Policy
Washington Post: Stem Cell Research, Auto Emission Rules, Reproductive Rights Among Targets of President-Elect's Team
Add a Comment See all 666 Comments
- A filibuster requires 60 votes to break it a 2/3 majority in the Senate requires 67 votes - a considerably higher standard.
Posted by misha128
------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------
You didn''''t answer the question how many republicans did we have in the 90''''s when they impeached bill
Posted by Mccain08NC at 11:39 AM
The same 100 Senators we have today that required 67 votes to remove a sitting president from office -- it hasn''t changes since Hawaii became the 50th state. If you care how many were Republicans or Democrats look it up yourself you can probably find the answer at senate.gov. - Reply to this comment
- Mccain08NC - What is you point?
- Reply to this comment
- if you think I am making this up do a little research on Berg v Obama.....Mccain08NC
Okay, wise@$$, I just got on Lexis and read the decision, all 30 pp. of it. Berg filed a ridiculous piece of ***. He had no standing to bring suit. Interestingly enough, this is the same "trick" that was used to disumiss a case in 2004 filed probably by a Democrat charging that the TX electoral votes could not be given to Bush Cheney because they were both "inhabitants of TX."
The case was properly decided on procedural grounds. Moreover, if there had been a real issue, then someone WITH standing would have brought it; they didn''t because they knew it was a waste of time and money. So get off it, will you? - Reply to this comment
- But again it does not suprise me though because the Dems didn''''t get the nick name of "Do nothing Dems" becasue they able to do anything.
Posted by Mccain08NC at 11:35 AM
If Dems do nothing as you state, why the great fear about the next four years? Could it be that if the Republicans are seen as obstructionists the plight of the party could actually get worse yet? - Reply to this comment
- The trial portion of the impeachment process that includes removal from office requires a vote of 2/3 affirmative of the Senators in the Senate -- do you think enough Republicans would vote in favor of removal from office? If not, then impeachment by the house, if possible, is a waste of time.
Posted by misha128
------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------
What was the percentages in the 90''''s when Cigar bill got impeached I don''''t beleive the republicans had a filibuster proof majority but they still impeached cigar bill for witness intimadation and lieing under oath.
So that is a pretty lame excuse if you ask me.
Posted by Mccain08NC at 11:33 AM
A filibuster requires 60 votes to break it a 2/3 majority in the Senate requires 67 votes - a considerably higher standard. - Reply to this comment
- If he was found guilty of anything the Liberal dems in power would have moved in a heart beat to have him impeached. We all know you libs don''''t want to go down in history as the only ones to have a president impeached. There have not even been a close call to have him impeached can you libs say that about the great Cigar Bill.
Posted by Mccain08NC at 11:22 AM : Nov 10, 2008
There have been two impeached presidents in history as I understand -- Andrew Johnson (Lincoln''s VP that became President) and Bill Clinton. Neither of those presidents were removed from office. Richard Nixon was the only president to resign when he decided his fate was sealed before the actual impeachment vote occurred. There are rumors that Republican Senators informed him he faced probable removal from office by the Senate if or more appropriately when the House actually impeached him. - Reply to this comment
- If he was found guilty of anything the Liberal dems in power would have moved in a heart beat to have him impeached.
Unlike the right wing hut cases that went after Clinton the Democratic congress put the good of the country ahead of impeaching Bush for his crimes. History will take care of Bush. - Reply to this comment
- If he was found guilty of anything the Liberal dems in power would have moved in a heart beat to have him impeached. We all know you libs don''''t want to go down in history as the only ones to have a president impeached. There have not even been a close call to have him impeached can you libs say that about the great Cigar Bill.
Posted by Mccain08NC at 11:22 AM : Nov 10, 2008
The trial portion of the impeachment process that includes removal from office requires a vote of 2/3 affirmative of the Senators in the Senate -- do you think enough Republicans would vote in favor of removal from office? If not, then impeachment by the house, if possible, is a waste of time. - Reply to this comment
- Before you jump in a conversation you need to know the basis I am not arguing Obama''''s citizenship we are discussing the double standard you libs hold people to. If someone on the right trys to get a case dismissed with out producing one piece of evidence to show they inocent you assume they are guilty. But someone on the left does the the same thing and is successful at it you think it is a great move.
And if you think I am making this up do a little research on Berg v Obama.....Mccain08NC
+
I did research it - it started a cry from the right wing. Evidence was produced - even though it was an obvius frantic attempt by a conservative to use whatever means possible to get their way. I think maybe you should do a little more research - try not to use the right slanted sites. The state of birth substantiated the citizenship. No trying to get out of anything - except maybe a complete waste of time.
Let me know when you are able to substantiate your claim and we can continue the discussion - but again - there are legitimate issues that can be discussed that don''t include someone whining about a non-issue. - Reply to this comment
- "Hey cbs-tom, unless you are hiding behind a male nickname, I am betting you won''''t ever need to have an abortion, so what are you worried about"?
Posted by hatesthecolt at 10:56 AM : Nov 10, 2008
I never owned a slave either, but I would be betting that I would be against that.
Killing the life of a baby is not just about the mother. That child is just that; A child. Different DNA and a seperate life. Why in the name of women''s rights, you would want to claim killing an innocent baby as a right, no one will ever know. Bad legacy isn''t it. Atleast admit that you are indeed murdering a seperate humane being. Don''t be a coward. - Reply to this comment
- Touchi!!!!!
You win you managed to make it look like I am the one assuming guilt when you were the one calling Bush a criminal because he has court cases against him.
Have a nice day!!!!
Posted by Mccain08NC at 11:16 AM
Bush has decided court cases against himself and his administration -- there is a difference. - Reply to this comment
- Yes there is a court case Berg V Obama. Obama spent 3 months fighting to get it dismissed rather than just producing the documents requested. ...
Posted by Mccain08NC at 11:05 AM
No documents means no proof. The defense in this country is not and never has been required to prove innocence. The prosecution or complainant in a civil case bears the burden of producing sufficient proof of their claims -- lacking any proof results in losing the case. However the lacking standing decision to bring a case, if upheld, makes this one of those frivolous law suits conservatives are always complaining about. - Reply to this comment
- I wish I was more inteligant I could understand how the left thinks.
If someone on the right uses all legal avenues available to them to make the case go away they are guilty and just trying to damage our court systems.
But if someone on the left uses those some avenues they inocent and just using their superior intlect.
Posted by Mccain08NC at 10:54 AM : Nov 10, 2008
The fifth amendment to the constitution protects citizens against self-incrimination and inferences of guilt based on their unwillingness to testify (present evidence). Perhaps you should review the constitution and the strict interpretation of the document the conservatives claim to support. - Reply to this comment
- There is no reputable news source reporting that Obama''s citizenship is in question. it is an internet rumour. Even fox news, which I don''t consider reputable because of its right wing stance, states "The Facts: Obama plainly is a citizen because he was born in the U.S. " Why is this an issue of discussion? Pre-election, there was more discussion regarding mcCain''s claim to being a natural born citizen because he was born in the PCZ. I thought that was bunk as well. I did find numerous, that may be an underexaggeration, mentions of the issue on pro-conservative websites.
Does anyone have a real issue to discuss? I like reading the comments, but this is not even a dead horse being beaten - it is as if there never was a horse! - Reply to this comment
- Hey cbs-tom, unless you are hiding behind a male nickname, I am betting you won''t ever need to have an abortion, so what are you worried about?
- Reply to this comment
- You have the right to claim exposure of documents you claim are valid while simultaneously supporting hiding documents you desire hidden such as Bush''''''''s military service record and criminal records? Hardly seems reasonable that the son of a president should be able to hide his records in his father''''''''s presidential archive while non-presidents'''''''' children must make all records public. For that reason alone the legal exercise should be permitted to each citizen as they and their lawyer see fit.
Posted by misha128
------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------
I am not arguing that bush is decetfull I am asking why you are not holding our president elect to the same standard.
Again why are you not calling Obama a non citizen when he had a court case against him and rather then produce the requested documents he just fought to get it dismissed? I beleive you have some double standards here!
Posted by Mccain08NC at 10:40 AM : Nov 10, 2008
There is no court case deciding the validity of your claim or the position you wish for me to acknowledge. The only evidence I have seen indicate that Senator Obama is a citizen -- where has any proof to the contrary been presented. My mother was adopted and her birth certificate was sealed, as I understand it, as a result of the adoption. She would be hard pressed by the standards you suggest to prove her own citizenship. - Reply to this comment
- What a great legacy the president elect is setting forth prior to even entering the office of the presidency. First thing on the agenda, essentially making the ease of killing babies available to all. We will give money to needy nations with no bar on how they use it. And, while proven not to be to effective, embryonic stem cell research will soon be in full swing. Adult stem cell research has some proven tracks and hopefully will help those in need. However, embryonic stem cell research has no proven track record.
One interesting fact: the adult stem cells can''t be copyrighted for monetary gain. The embryonic stem cells can be copyrighted. Could this be about money? What do you think? - Reply to this comment
- Posted by DJ_IL at 10:43 AM : Nov 10, 2008
I stand on the point that the person and their lawyer should be permitted to address the issue as they see fit. I made no statement concerning the outcome -- just the process. - Reply to this comment
- President Obama''s first executive order should be to annul the entire bush term in office!
Just wipe it off the history books so we an forget it, clean up the mess, and move on. - Reply to this comment
- These appellate cases are to decide if the lower court ruling is correct. As I understand it December 1st will determine if the Supreme Court can find 4 justices to accept the case as worthy of review. Then there is the actual Supreme Court Review, then only if so ordered subsequent to that review the lower court will reopen the case with actual arguments over additional legal points and evidence to be required, etc.
Posted by misha128
------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------
See now your talking a bunch of legal stuff wouldn''''t have been easier for Obama just to produce the documents requested and make this case go away.
...
Posted by Mccain08NC at 10:26 AM : Nov 10, 2008
You have the right to claim exposure of documents you claim are valid while simultaneously supporting hiding documents you desire hidden such as Bush''s military service record and criminal records? Hardly seems reasonable that the son of a president should be able to hide his records in his father''s presidential archive while non-presidents'' children must make all records public. For that reason alone the legal exercise should be permitted to each citizen as they and their lawyer see fit. - Reply to this comment
International recording artist Shakira on love, career and more.
