Attempt to Harm Social Security? Impeachment is on the table.

[NuttyFluffers]

this is my stock reply to all politicians from now until forever.

there is no debate.
there is no nuance.
there is no negotiation.
there is no leverage.
the matter is closed.

my line in the sand, partisan politics be damned.

now take that bit of information to all of your politicians, of any branch, of any political persuasion.

no more trial balloon, no more games.

[newfie11]

1. Totally agree nt

[aristocles]

2. Impeachment?

On what grounds?

[NuttyFluffers]

3. on any that can be found...

if you build enough enemies, their choice of allies will be plentiful.

no games.

any politician -- of any level, branch, affiliation, etc. -- better think twice before even flirting with this idea ever again.

[Zoeisright]

57. Get a hobby.

You need something to calm you down. Your posts are completely disgusting.

[Itchinjim]

4. On the grounds that he pissed NuttyFluffers off.

Some where in the Constitution it says a President can't do that.

[NuttyFluffers]

9. all have skeletons in the closet...

any one will do.

from elected dog catcher to president, i want this message to be very clear.

[JoePhilly]

13. I'm sure the Tea Party is prepared to help you ...

but so far, the best they have is a fake birth certificate.

Maybe you will do better.

[TheKentuckian]

94. Sure. High crimes and misdemeanors means what ever Congress can get the votes for.

throwing him to the wolves would set a pretty good example of the consequences of touching that third rail.

The perfect message is you will be savaged and destroyed by any all means necessary, despised and despicable. Sold out by those you dared considering selling at the slightest provocation on any pretense no matter how thin and phony.

One such example should brush most off the plate but if not rinse and repeat and consider it aggressive treatment of a cancer.

[AverageJoe90]

106. Yep. This shit will get us precisely nowhere....and a half. n/t

[Bake]

36. "High crimes and misdemeanors" means whatever a majority of the House says it means.

In other words, spitting on the sidewalk would do the trick. Flipping a cigarette butt. Killing American citizens overseas by drone, without due process. That sort of thing.

Bake

[Katashi_itto]

39. If SSA benefits "reform" gets passed i am for it.

[ashling]

50. On the grounds that the Republican House

would impeach him in a minute if they thought they could get away with it.

Biden would sure as hell not use Social Security for a bargaining chip.

[HiPointDem]

108. biden? lol. the senator from the tax haven of delaware. it's not even a state, it's a fiefdom.

[russspeakeasy]

5. + 1

[elleng]

6. Good. Impeach all the repugs.

[NuttyFluffers]

7. i agree to that.

just how their evil rape talk slaughtered their political numbers, the same should happen for their evil social security talk.

no more games.

[sheshe2]

12. +1

[TimberValley]

16. For....what?

Is calling-for-impeachment-for anything-and-everything the new thing in politics?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

8. At Sat Apr 6, 2013, 05:49 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Attempt to Harm Social Security? Impeachment is on the table.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022626778
REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Call to impeach sitting Democratic president, on a democratic site? This isn't cool.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Apr 6, 2013, 05:57 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I am in agreement with this post, and this poster. There is nothing wrong with this discussion, NOTHING. Let it stand, for crissakes.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Typical DU poutrage based on emotions not facts...another reason this place is getting uglier by the day...
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.


I was Juror #1. It's funny, because I had just given this post a rec. Apparently doing that doesn't keep you off a jury for that post.

[NuttyFluffers]

10. =) thanks CaliforniaPeggy. my "poutrage" is very real, however.

i don't give a shit about someone's delusional debate about 'facts' or 'positioning' or 'back room whispers'.

this is a simple declaration of boundaries.

i have stated mine.

all politicians who flirt with pushing these boundaries, even in off-hand talk, shall expect political enemies.

nothing personal and nothing related to parties. just stating a clearly defined political position for all who pursue political power in the USA in the future.

[Kolesar]

11. You need a hobby...eom

[cali]

71. what's delusional, nutty, is thinking impeachment for making changes to Social Security

is even a remote possibility, but carry on with your delusion of grandeur.

[AgingAmerican]

76. Perhaps...

But I think Nutty's point got heard, loud and clear.

[Cleita]

17. Really, someone alerted on this?

It seems it's time to get the Raid out again.

[Cha]

74. I agree with Juror # 5. Really Freaking Ugly.

[PoliticAverse]

14. Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc.htm

[TimberValley]

15. Impeachment for what exactly?

Cutting SS may be hugely unpopular, but I don't see what is in the least impeachable about it.

[Occulus]

20. Cutting SS *will* cause some deaths. No two ways about it.

And nobody in any political position can deny that simple fact.

Some people may even starve. Starve! To death!

Others may freeze when winter hits, because the cuts were just enough to get the heat shut off.

Freeze! TO DEATH!

Knowing those things, and voting cuts into place, is to me not only a high crime, but the highest of all possible high crimes.

Killing your own, to save a few hundred buck per on the balance sheet.

Yes, that most certain is grounds for impeachment or, if not, then the impeachment bar cannot ever possibly be legitimately reached.

[TimberValley]

22. This is absurd. Many budget cuts could, theoretically, indirectly lead to fatalities.

You could say that a cut in Transportation spending could lead to lessened safety measures which could then indirectly cause people to be killed in transportation-related accidents. Does this mean that cutting transportation spending = led to deaths = impeachable offense?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

86. By that logic, Republicans in the House should definitely impeach themselves over Benghazi

After all, they cut funding for embassy security after all. Don't see them holding themselves for that (or anything else, really), of course.......

[OldDem2012]

34. Why don't we go after the gas, oil, and electric companies for raising their prices....

....far beyond the ability of some retirees and the poor to be able to pay? Why don't we push for legislation that will force those companies to give hefty discounts to the poor and retirees?

Doesn't that make more sense than posting nonsense about impeaching a President for merely SUGGESTING that he's open to a deal that would cut SS in return for increased taxes on the wealthy? Do you really think any such bill will ever reach his desk for signature? If you do, I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you in Alaska.

[quakerboy]

80. Wouldnt that be in the same exact hands

as the politicians bringing these SS cuts to us?

If we cant push a president to not cut social security, how are we going to push one to interfere in private enterprise?

[OldDem2012]

89. Sigh. Please show me a link where the President has actually cut one cent from SS. nt.

[quakerboy]

98. Sigh back. Show me a link where i said he has.

OK with you if we consider SS cuts a third rail? An issue worthy of withdrawing our support from any politician who would propose it, and worthy of actively campaigning against any politician who might dare to actually act on such a proposal?

If President Obama isn't proposing cuts, then you have nothing to worry about. We are all snug on the same side of the covers on this one.

If of course, he is, then we might have a problem. Since a lot of people strongly oppose cutting social security, it seems to me that they might be justifiably offended by someone proposing it.

[OldDem2012]

103. Reread your post to which I responded. nt.

[quakerboy]

105. Might be good if you read it first. nt.

[OldDem2012]

18. So, you want to impeach the President for a suggesting that SS be cut, even though....

....no president has the ability to create legislation of ANY kind? Really?

You need to do a little review on the grounds for impeachment.

[Cleita]

21. But he can sign on to legislation depending what he gets from Congress.

So his offer to Boehner implies he will sign what they give him and if it includes chained CPI, he will agree to it. He promised not to touch Social Security to get elected, so I think it's impeachable because he lied. It isn't just NuttyFlutters but everyone in the nation 65 and over.

[TimberValley]

25. Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't lying only impeachable if it was under oath?

If someone makes a promise during an election campaign, then breaks it afterwards, that doesn't sound like an impeachable offense to me.

[Cleita]

26. Okay, we look for lies under oath then. n/t

[OldDem2012]

38. You'll probably find one of those in the same box with his.....

....Kenyan birth certificate. Write to Donald Trump....I'm sure he'll be happy to help you.

[iandhr]

43. If that was impeachable you then every president we have ever had...

... would have been impeached.

[Bake]

49. An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House says it is.

All the Constitution says is "high crimes and misdemeanors." And it conveniently does not define those terms.

Bake

[OldDem2012]

28. Please stop. He knows that the Senate Dems will never agree to cuts in any earned benefit program...

....and he also knows the GOP Tea-Nazis will never agree to tax increases on the wealthy. Therefore, the President will NEVER see a bill on his desk that includes cuts to SS or increased taxes on the wealthy. No bill, no signature.

Additionally, you're confusing promises made in political speeches with actual impeachable offenses while performing the duties of president, and there is nothing here to impeach no matter how hard you want to wish it so.

I'm linking this from a post earlier in the thread concerning the impeachment process and impeachable offenses:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc.htm

Read it and tell me what impeachable offense you believe this falls under.

[Cleita]

33. He didn't think they'd let the sequester go through either. n/t

[OldDem2012]

35. Did the sequester affect earned benefits in any way? No. So, what's your point? nt.

[Cleita]

37. It's affected people across the board. I'm doing a thread on it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251291987

These are DUers writing about how it's affecting them or those around them.

[OldDem2012]

40. Please answer my question. Your response fell short by a large margin. nt.

[Cleita]

41. What was your question, if you had one?

All I saw was a snark.

[OldDem2012]

44. Did the sequester affect earned benefits in any way? No. So, what's your point?....

You really thought THAT was a "snark"? Really?? If so, you need to grow thicker skin.

Now, please answer my question, which has now been asked twice.

[Cleita]

47. WTF do you mean by earned benefits?

A little clarity please. The sequester has affected social programs that people rely on and aren't getting anymore. So which earned benefits do you have your panties in a wad about?

[OldDem2012]

56. Wow. No, you apparently need a LOT of clarity....

....Please show me in a link where Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps or any other earned benefit has been cut by the sequester. Here's a hint....NONE of those programs were cut by the sequester.

My panties aren't in a wad about anything. In fact, I actually laugh at loud at each rant about impeaching the President for something he said and can't personally enact.

Incredible!

[Cleita]

58. Here you go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022628227

[OldDem2012]

63. Sorry, and I don't want to sound calloused, but that's not an earned benefit. Try again. nt.

[Cleita]

66. Well, you win. I can't fathom what you are having a fit about.

I'm done talking to you.

[OldDem2012]

92. Wow. My posts are very clearly written for anyone with basic English reading skills....

....I would ask you to reread my posts in this thread, but I'm afraid it just wouldn't do any good.

[Cleita]

93. Whose basic English? Yours? Or the English?

[OldDem2012]

97. The hole you're digging with each post is under your own feet. Please stop. nt.

[Cleita]

100. I will stop.

[LeftInTX]

30. Who will do the impeaching?

The thugs hold the house and if they sign on to this, then there's nothing anyone can do. And it's the rethugs who do the impeaching anyway.

Now, if he did it via executive order, then there is a case.

[bhikkhu]

19. I'd probably want to see the actual budget proposal before calling for impeachment

the devil is in the details, as they say, and I'd not jump to the conclusion that Obama is out to harm social security, or anyone who relies on it, without seeing the actual proposal.

[TimberValley]

23. Can we please not propose impeachment for everything?

We haven't gotten to that point, but this forum is getting a little bit absurd of late on this topic.

[aristocles]

27. I agree. The grounds for impeachment are narrow.

And lying is not a sufficient ground for impeachment.

[OldDem2012]

31. All of this impeachment crap is starting to sound like what we hear all of time from....

....the extreme right-wing.

The Obama-Hate is strong in this thread.

[Chef Eric]

48. This is what happens when the POTUS acts like he doesn't care about people. nt

[OldDem2012]

55. No, it's what happens when people have immediate knee-jerk reactions to anything that....

....the President says, even though he has no way to personally enact what he says.

Sad, really. So many angry people with no real reason to actually be angry.

[Chef Eric]

62. Yes, so sad. Go weep your eyes out. nt

[OldDem2012]

64. Who, me? LOL! I'm not angry about anything. In fact I'm greatly amused by the OP and....

....resultant comments by folks who evidently don't understand the reasons for which a president can actually be impeached. Making a public suggestion about legislation including cuts to SS and increased taxes for the wealthy is not an impeachable offense no matter how many people express their outrage about legislation that will never happen.

Additionally, no president can create legislation...that's the job of Congress. As long as the Senate Dems are protecting earned benefits, and the House GOP Tea-Nazis are preventing increased taxes on the wealthy, legislation of this nature will never reach the President's desk for signature.

But, hey....as long as the ranters rant, I'll be laughing! Great comedy!

[Chef Eric]

69. Huh?? I never said you were angry.

I do, however, think your moods are all over the place. In your previous post you said it was "sad" that people were reacting so strongly.

Now all of a sudden you call it "great comedy."

[OldDem2012]

90. I can see very clearly that you need a class on basic English comprehension. nt.

....

[Chef Eric]

107. Go back and read your own posts. nt

[Cooley Hurd]

29. Really?

You must've been fun in 1998.

[LeftInTX]

32. Wouldn't the house rethugs do the impeaching anyway?

And there won't be any SS cuts unless the house rethugs want them.

[iandhr]

42. Wow. I have heard some crazy **** before.

But I think this becomes to quote Colbert "The Craziest F#?King Thing I've Ever Heard"

[MineralMan]

45. A Completely Moronic Idea.

Thanks so much for sharing.

[pnwmom]

46. No, actually it's not.

The House won't vote for impeachment on these grounds. And the Senate, where impeachment nuts would need a 2/3 vote, won't convict on any grounds.

[treestar]

51. Nutty is right, you're in a dream world where there are no Republicans

who want to eliminate SS altogether! Eliminate every social program. Hold the government hostage at every point where a budget must be enacted. It's like you are in 1860s America, demanding the vote for women and acting like Lincoln was horrible for not standing for it in the face of everything else.

[peace13]

52. I assume this comes right behind...

-starting illegal wars
-taking the Constitution and shredding it
-stealing elections

....so you see the outrage is less outrageous when you look at what has been done in the last 12 years, without one threat of impeachment.

[steve2470]

53. I empathize with your anger on this issue

However, impeachment really is not the answer. Loud outrage IS the answer in every legal and effective way. Everyone in the legislative and administrative branches need to know that this is NOT acceptable in any way, shape or form.

[YOHABLO]

54. It's Really Ashame about Obama putting that forward .. to appease Repugs?

Social Security is not, in anyway associated with the debt. Social Security is doing just fine. We don't have a deficit problem in this country, we have a jobs problem. We also don't have enough revenue because of the tax breaks congress has given the richest 1 to 2% of this country. I am on Social Security Disability and recently had to go in for a cardio stress test .. and all that jazz. The bill .. drumroll please, $9,000 dollars. Medicare picked up $8,500 dollars of it. Sorry tax payers. But I am still liable for $500 of it. Point being: we are being ripped to shreds by health care costs in this country. Obama has capitulated enough to Republicans and Centrists in this country claim: what else can he do? They (the Repugs) won't compromise on anything. True. But Obama could draw the line in the sand in terms of LEAVE SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICADE & MEDICARE ALONE. I think we have a very naive president and is totally frightened of the CORPORATE MACHINE.

By the way, I don't have the $500 to pay Piedmont Hospital in Atlanta GA, so if there is anyone out there that knows a way to get this wavered .. ha ha please let me know.

We couldn't even get Impeachment proceedings on Bush and Cheney .. and I understand the anger, however, let's be realistic. We may have to hit the streets in front of the WH! Occupy the WH. Say no to cuts in any social programs that help the poor in this country. Okay, I am through

[duffyduff]

67. He's trying to pander to his backers on Wall Street, plus his ego requires

he look good to historians as a "transformative" president like his favorite president Ronald Reagan.

I only exaggerate a bit about the Reagan comment, but he did mention to the Reno Gazette-Journal back in 2008 about what a transformative president Reagan was.

He could have found a better example, let me tell you, but I believe he subscribes to many of Reagan's ideas.

[sendero]

81. Obama missed his chance..

... to be a "transformative" president about 4 years ago. I hope he has a better reason than that for pressing the hand of the Democratic party on the third rail.

[NYC Liberal]

59. This is without a doubt one of the dumbest threads I have ever seen on DU.

And that includes threads like "NASA to bomb the moon".

There is nothing even remotely logical about impeachment for amending existing legislation in a way you don't like, in a way that in no way, shape, or form violates the constitution.

[duffyduff]

68. I don't think it is any dumber than posts claiming Obama is playing "chess" with his opponents

Hell, they are all on the same team if you bother to look at the evidence.

[ProSense]

84. Oh, it's a lot "dumber"

May as well demand he turn in his birth certificate and hand him a one-way ticket to Kenya.

[NYC Liberal]

88. Yes, I think calling for impeachment is absolutely 1000x dumber

[TheKentuckian]

95. Who gives a shit what it is for? Throw him to the wolves and give yeas for whatever token nonsense

they like birth certificate, Mexican gun running, hyperbolic finger pointing at embassy killings, drone strikes, or whatever it is. Who cares, throw him to the dogs and let them chew. Let that be an example to anyone else with any keen ideas.

[sabrina 1]

60. No, it is not grounds for impeachment, but it is grounds for removal from

the Democratic Party. No Democrat would cut SS benefits. If you want to send a message, then don't ask for something that is not possible, ask for something that is not only possible, it should be part of the requirement for being a member of the Democratic Party.

[ProSense]

83. Clearly, they

impeached Clinton for the wrong reason. Clinton increased the amount of Social Security benefits subject to taxes.

<...>

Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A3. The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote.

The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.

The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve).

The full text of the Greenspan Commission report is available on our website.

President's Reagan's signing statement for the 1983 Amendments can also be found on our website.

A detailed explanation of the provisions of the 1983 law is also available on the website.

Q4. Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?

A4. In 1993, legislation was enacted which had the effect of increasing the tax put in place under the 1983 law. It raised from 50% to 85% the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation; but the increased percentage only applied to "higher income" beneficiaries. Beneficiaries of modest incomes might still be subject to the 50% rate, or to no taxation at all, depending on their overall taxable income.

This change in the tax rate was one provision in a massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) passed that year. The OBRA 1993 legislation was deadlocked in the Senate on a tie vote of 50-50 and Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding vote in favor of passage. President Clinton signed the bill into law on August 10, 1993.

(You can find a brief historical summary of the development of taxation of Social Security benefits on the Social Security website.)

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

Let's see, under Reagan benefits of $1,500 would see about $750 of that taxed. At 15 percent, that would be about $112.

Under Clinton, the taxable amount rose to $1,275. At 15 percent, that would be about $191, an increase in taxes of about $78.

[sabrina 1]

109. If I had been paying attention back then I would say the same thing.

The Third Way has been working on taking over this party for decades. We were distracted by Monica Lewinsky and rushed to defend a Democratic president. We have since learned that had that not happened, Bowles and Clinton intended to begin the process of a Dem president attacking SS.

Now we are wiser, more aware and far less willing to be blinded by partisanship.

Anyone in this Party, including Clinton, who touches that program on behalf of the Koch Brothers, Pete Petersen et al, does not belong in the Democratic Party. And every candidate who runs as a democrat will have to have no history now of showing even the slightest willingness to lie about SS. THAT is the litmus test for democrats. It is one of the most important pieces of Democratic legislation and right now should not even be mentioned in connection to the deficit. Benefits should be increased and anyone saying anything different, is going to have to answer to the people.

[Demo_Chris]

61. Who cares, he doesn't represent us anyway. nt

[Pisces]

65. Whatever. Go hug a teddybear while adults make the adult decisions. Kids don't always like what has

to be done for their own good, even though the kids don't understand. So sick of all of the dramatic boo hoo threads about
Obama being a turncoat. Please give everyone a break.

I am most inclined to think these are paid operatives posting to cause as much division and dissention as possible.

[cali]

70. No. Impeachment is not on the table. Silly fantasy shit

[MineralMan]

72. Ah...no nuance, indeed. No knowledge, either.

Here's a question for you, nuttyfluffers: Which elected government officials can be impeached, what are the grounds for impeachment, and who does the impeaching?

This is, by the way, an open-book quiz. And, in case you don't have access to Google, here is a link to a place where you can discover the answers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

Answer that, please, and then self-delete your silly post.

[WilliamPitt]

73. You chose the right screen name.

Impeachment requires a crime or a misdemeanor.

[SidDithers]

75. ...

Sid

[Buzz Clik]

77. Pure genius.

[Babel_17]

78. According to Wikipedia

trying to drum up an impeachment over that would be unprecedented and arguably against the intent, and the language, of the Constitution.

Though Wikipedia does state: "At the Philadelphia Convention, Benjamin Franklin noted that, historically, the removal of “obnoxious” chief executives had been accomplished by assassination. Franklin suggested that a proceduralized mechanism for removal — impeachment — would be preferable."

"In writing Article II, Section Four, George Mason had favored impeachment for "maladministration" (incompetence), but James Madison, who favored impeachment only for criminal behavior, carried the issue. Hence, cases of impeachment may be undertaken only for "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors." However, some scholars, such as Kevin Gutzman, have disputed this view and argue that the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was intended to have a much more expansive meaning."

My 2 cents? Using the "I" word is fine for venting but Impeachment is for when the political process has broken down or become ineffective. The administration is beyond electoral recall but I've yet to see activists call for marches and sit-ins, etc.

After those were to happen, depending on the outcome, I guess many more would be open to at least listening to arguments that favored Impeachment.

I can imagine some of that and it would be ugly. My opinion on this Chained CPI has been plain. I'm against it. But that doesn't mean I think the administration should be subject to impeachment worries.

When I consider what has slid by from government over the last decade ...., no, I can't seriously entertain impeachment talk because of the Chained CPI.

[PolitFreak]

79. See reply #40

in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022631518

[brooklynite]

82. ...except that it's not

Because while bloggers like to throw around IMPEACHMENT and TREASON, you don't get to apply those rules: Congress or the Justice Dept does. So, you're welcome to draw your line in the sand, but why not be realistic. You want to vote out / Primary someone who doesn't vote the way you want? Knock yourself out. Anything else in bluster.

[Rosco T.]

85. Utter Horseshit.

you got the Dems or Thugs.

There is no viable third party.

[George II]

87. "Attempt to Harm Social Security? Impeachment is on the table"??? GROW UP!!!!!

[RBInMaine]

91. Take a deep breath partner. As usual, people are jumping off the deep end WAY too early.

[dtom67]

99. I was censored several months ago...

For suggesting the same thing. I was so pissed I self -deleted all of my posts and intended to quit DU. Bernie Sanders was warning about this before the election. As soon as the election was over, I contacted my congress Reps and urged my FBook friends to do so as well.
Who cares if the gop is broken, if our Dems are gonna act like Repubs.
The gop doesn't need to suppress the Democrat vote; Obama is doing it for them....

[NuttyFluffers]

111. it is the same "leave this to the adults" crowd trying to silence...

no big surprise. it takes effort to manufacture consent.

but i appreciate the furor and concern. that means i hit a nerve. good.

remember this: the only language power understands is power.

when you are willing to work within the system you must be prepared to exploit the system's forms of punishment against those who defy you. impeachment is one of the forms of punishment. to leave it off the table in the face of your representatives destroying your core values is self-neutering. in other words, foolishness... or deliberate servitude.

so who is willing to sacrifice social security for political gain again?

and yet i am seen as the mad one...

[patrice]

101. Impeachment? That's a REAL right-wingy thing to say, especially with war criminals running free.

Count me out.

[patrice]

102. Apt screen-name, btw. nt

[taught_me_patience]

104. I think it's time to chill a bit

I can't believe so many rec'd this crazy rant.

[closeupready]

110. K&R.