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

[misha128-2009]

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.

[oscarez]

Mccain08NC - What is you point?

[hatesthecolt]

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?

[misha128-2009]

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?

[misha128-2009]

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.

[misha128-2009]

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.

[oscarez]

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.

[misha128-2009]

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.

[ral95]

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.

[cbs_tom]

"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.