California Proposition 19: the Mariju...

California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legalization Initiative

Created by CitizenTopix on Oct 7, 2010

19,879 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#13973 Dec 18, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Already done, not a single intent stated in the impeachment was achieved, no penalty within it was accomplished.
where I come from.... that is a failure
Waiting for your fabulous success story ( I suspect I will wait a long time )
You confuse impeachment by the House with conviction by the Senate. Because you're a big dope.

The impeachment was a success. The conviction was a failure.

Hope that helps. Seriously.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#13974 Dec 18, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
You confuse impeachment by the House with conviction by the Senate. Because you're a big dope.
The impeachment was a success. The conviction was a failure.
Hope that helps. Seriously.
You are confusing the vote in the house, with the success or failure of the intent of the impeachment

There is no question on the vote in the house
There is no question on if he was impeached by the house
There is no question on the vote in the senate
There is no question that the intent, and every penalty within the impeachment failed to be applied because of the vote in the Senate

A charge does not contain a penalty written within it, and Impeachment does, and this one did, that is how an impeachment is different than a charge.

I know you cannot understand this, I donít know why you keep at it.

You cannot show a single intent that was indeed written into the articles of impeachment were applied, that is because it failed in the Senate

Much like the Murder charges against OJ Simpson failed in court.

Yes Clinton was impeached by the house, and yes the impeachment ended up being a total and absolute failure as every intent and every penalty written into the impeachment were not applied.

Even funnier, is the un-written intent of the impeachment, to discredit Bill Clinton by the GOP has backfired, he now has a higher approval rating than nearly anyone In the republican party

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#13975 Dec 18, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are confusing the vote in the house, with the success or failure of the intent of the impeachment
There is no question on the vote in the house
There is no question on if he was impeached by the house
There is no question on the vote in the senate
There is no question that the intent, and every penalty within the impeachment failed to be applied because of the vote in the Senate
A charge does not contain a penalty written within it, and Impeachment does, and this one did, that is how an impeachment is different than a charge.
I know you cannot understand this, I donít know why you keep at it.
You cannot show a single intent that was indeed written into the articles of impeachment were applied, that is because it failed in the Senate
Much like the Murder charges against OJ Simpson failed in court.
Yes Clinton was impeached by the house, and yes the impeachment ended up being a total and absolute failure as every intent and every penalty written into the impeachment were not applied.
Even funnier, is the un-written intent of the impeachment, to discredit Bill Clinton by the GOP has backfired, he now has a higher approval rating than nearly anyone In the republican party
The impeachment was not a failure. You are wrong. Bill Clinton was impeached.

What a dope!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#13976 Dec 18, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
The impeachment was not a failure. You are wrong. Bill Clinton was impeached.
What a dope!
again you cannot differentiate

You donít have the intelligence to continue this conversation

I have said over 100 times now yes he was impeached, and still you parrot that back, because you cannot stand up to anything else I am saying.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#13977 Dec 18, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
again you cannot differentiate
You donít have the intelligence to continue this conversation
I have said over 100 times now yes he was impeached, and still you parrot that back, because you cannot stand up to anything else I am saying.
You're saying the impeachment failed. It didn't. You're wrong. Look it up.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#13978 Dec 18, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
You're saying the impeachment failed. It didn't. You're wrong. Look it up.
You arenít going to get it Mike.. You may as well drop it

I donít really believe you canít understand, but I am certain you are determined to not understand.

Yes he was impeached by the house
Yes the senate has the power to try impeachments
Yes every article written into the impeachment as a penalty for the impeachment failed to be applied
Yes every intent of the impeachment failed, nothing became of it after the Senate vote, it became a non-issue, a total failure.

But you cannot ever get past the house vote, so you will always think it was a glorious success, while the rest of us that know a little more about how our government works will just laugh.
Mr Anderson

Washington, UT

#13979 Dec 18, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
You're saying the impeachment failed. It didn't. You're wrong. Look it up.
the OBJECTIVES of the rethuglicans was NOT achieved.

bill clinton served TWO FULL terms.....in case you forgot...

and now the rethuglican party is pretty well OVER...

time to sweep up and turn off the lights!!

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#13980 Dec 18, 2012
Mr Anderson wrote:
<quoted text>
the OBJECTIVES of the rethuglicans was NOT achieved.
bill clinton served TWO FULL terms.....in case you forgot...
and now the rethuglican party is pretty well OVER...
time to sweep up and turn off the lights!!
We're not talking about the intent of the impeachment or the objectives of the "rethuglicans" or your grandma's pretty pink panties. We're talking about Clinton's impeachment.

You insist it failed. It did not. You are wrong.

Bill Clinton was impeached.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#13981 Dec 18, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
We're not talking about the intent of the impeachment or the objectives of the "rethuglicans" or your grandma's pretty pink panties. We're talking about Clinton's impeachment.
You insist it failed. It did not. You are wrong.
Bill Clinton was impeached.
Yes we are... I know you arenít, you are talking about the House vote and no further, as if the house vote was the end all and everything is a success if the house votes yea, but that isnít the end it.

But that isnít the end of an impeachment, because later the trial is in the Senate, and not a single intent of the impeachment was implemented, not one.

I donít know anyone that has been saying he was not impeached, I certainly have not.

But the impeachment was a failure, every intent, every article written into the impeachment as a punishment absolutely and positively failed. It died in the Senate, was shelved and was never brought out again, achieving absolutely nothing whatsoever.

That... is a failure

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#13982 Dec 18, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes we are... I know you arenít, you are talking about the House vote and no further, as if the house vote was the end all and everything is a success if the house votes yea, but that isnít the end it.
But that isnít the end of an impeachment, because later the trial is in the Senate, and not a single intent of the impeachment was implemented, not one.
I donít know anyone that has been saying he was not impeached, I certainly have not.
But the impeachment was a failure, every intent, every article written into the impeachment as a punishment absolutely and positively failed. It died in the Senate, was shelved and was never brought out again, achieving absolutely nothing whatsoever.
That... is a failure
Impeachment is the sole power of the House. The Senate cannot fail the House's impeachment. Only try it. They did as you seem to know. And they acquitted as you seem to know. This in no way means the impeachment failed as you insist it did. You are wrong.
After d is F

La Puente, CA

#13983 Dec 18, 2012
So on and so on, such is and are's of what the out of towners post.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#13984 Dec 18, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Impeachment is the sole power of the House. The Senate cannot fail the House's impeachment. Only try it. They did as you seem to know. And they acquitted as you seem to know. This in no way means the impeachment failed as you insist it did. You are wrong.
and the Senate has the sole power to try impeachments, we have already been over that.

At least you have got to the bottom of the argument, we have been staring at it for weeks now, you are talking about the house only, as if it is a total success if it passes the house, and you totally ignore the trial and every article in the impeachment itself

Iím looking at the entre thing, the whole process, the vote to impeach in the house, the trial in the Senate, and the outcome of the intent of the Impeachment and every article written as a penalty within the impeachment itself.

From the perspective of the entire thing, start to finish ( which does not end in the House ) it was a failure, there is no other word for it, it did not achieve any of its goals, not one.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#13985 Dec 18, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Impeachment is the sole power of the House. The Senate cannot fail the House's impeachment. Only try it. They did as you seem to know. And they acquitted as you seem to know. This in no way means the impeachment failed as you insist it did. You are wrong.
I donít insist it failed, It did fail, every intent, every article written into the impeachment as a penalty failed, none of it was achieved

I donít insist it failed, I am just reporting what did happen that you donít seem to know.

Let try a different tack, why did Bill Clinton finish his second term if the impeachment that induced his removal from office was a success?

It either succeeded in removing him from office as was stated in the articles of impeachment, or It didnít and failed.
Mr Anderson

Washington, UT

#13986 Dec 18, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
We're not talking about the intent of the impeachment or the objectives of the "rethuglicans" or your grandma's pretty pink panties. We're talking about Clinton's impeachment.
You insist it failed. It did not. You are wrong.
Bill Clinton was impeached.
TECHnically, they impeached clinton in the congress.

but to ONLY tell a little peice of the story?? and to harp on it myopically, like reichardo harps on benghazi(while ignoring, say, IRAQ) or how he harps on egypt?/

that is exactly how you sound on THIS topic....

like a reich winged tea bagging fool, who no matter how many overlaying facts you provide to??

REFUSES to tell th whole story....

a young confused child, or idiot savant, acts like that...

that is why I call you "rainmikey"!!

FUN!

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#13987 Dec 18, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I donít insist it failed, It did fail, every intent, every article written into the impeachment as a penalty failed, none of it was achieved
I donít insist it failed, I am just reporting what did happen that you donít seem to know.
Let try a different tack, why did Bill Clinton finish his second term if the impeachment that induced his removal from office was a success?
It either succeeded in removing him from office as was stated in the articles of impeachment, or It didnít and failed.
Clinton finished his second term because he was not removed from office, he was acquitted as I've told you 20 times. Please don't ask again, you know the answer.

But of course he was impeached. It's history. He wasn't failed to be impeached, he was impeached. You are wrong.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#13988 Dec 18, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Clinton finished his second term because he was not removed from office, he was acquitted as I've told you 20 times. Please don't ask again, you know the answer.
But of course he was impeached. It's history. He wasn't failed to be impeached, he was impeached. You are wrong.
Well if you put blinders on and donít look past the house vote, then I suppose you can deprive yourself of enough information that you would believe it was this stupendous success.

You keep saying he was impeached, we have covered that, yes he was impeached, no one is arguing otherwise.

I donít have blinders on, I can see past the house, and the outcome of the impeachment, it was a failure, did not achieve a single objective that was written in the impeachment.

You would only know that if you took the blinders off.

It isnít about my being right, I am talking about history, facts, not opinions.

I know that every intent of the impeachment, every passage written in the impeachment, even the un-written intents of the impeachment failed, it achieved absolutely nothing.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#13989 Dec 18, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if you put blinders on and donít look past the house vote, then I suppose you can deprive yourself of enough information that you would believe it was this stupendous success.
You keep saying he was impeached, we have covered that, yes he was impeached, no one is arguing otherwise.
I donít have blinders on, I can see past the house, and the outcome of the impeachment, it was a failure, did not achieve a single objective that was written in the impeachment.
You would only know that if you took the blinders off.
It isnít about my being right, I am talking about history, facts, not opinions.
I know that every intent of the impeachment, every passage written in the impeachment, even the un-written intents of the impeachment failed, it achieved absolutely nothing.
You refuse to learn what impeachment means. The Senate cannot fail the House's impeachment, that is the House's sole power.

You are saying he was acquitted in the Senate. That is true. But that in no way means his impeachment failed. It did not. You are wrong.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#13990 Dec 18, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
You refuse to learn what impeachment means. The Senate cannot fail the House's impeachment, that is the House's sole power.
You are saying he was acquitted in the Senate. That is true. But that in no way means his impeachment failed. It did not. You are wrong.
And the Senate has the sole power to try Impeachments, yes we have gone over that and you wonít read the constitution so you are stuck on that section and wonít read the next.

I already know what Impeachment means, you refuse to learn what Success means.

When every intent, every article, every goal failed, it failed.

It isnít a matter of my being right, it is what happened, it is a matter of you being ignorant of what happened.
Goldlines

La Puente, CA

#13991 Dec 18, 2012
A fat-headed mindless Senior citizen abuser was a speaker Saturday December 15, 2012 bridge grand opening.
MagicJack

La Puente, CA

#13993 Dec 18, 2012
Smoogio's and a town or two away, good bye.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Beverly Hills Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 20 min Mexico 22,059
Pacific Palisades Jukebox (Jun '12) 7 hr Musikologist 20
maria catalina ibarra (Feb '16) 12 hr Mark Of The Valley 191
News Club hopping: The Crazy Horse (Jul '08) 14 hr Logic 172
News Paris Hilton appears in court for hacker's sent... Jun 15 bubba6 3
Hello Beverly Hills Jun 14 d00dl 2
News ABC cancels country music drama 'Nashville' aft... (May '16) Jun 14 d00dl 2

Beverly Hills Jobs

Personal Finance

Beverly Hills Mortgages