California Proposition 19: the Mariju...

California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legalization Initiative

Created by CitizenTopix on Oct 7, 2010

19,589 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#13958 Dec 18, 2012
Big D wrote:
I never ever said he wants impeached, we have been over that, take your Alzheimer meds
So that oh so successful Impeachment achieved... what? In what way was the Impeachment successful? If it achieved nothing, and every penalty within it was voided... in what way was it a success?
There are several words that you donít know the meaning of, starting with success.
The House successfully impeached Clinton. Why can't you understand this simple sentence-

"The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers and shall have the sole power of impeachment." US Constitution Article I Sec 2

What part of "Sole power of impeachment" is confusing you?

I'm here to help!

FUN!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#13959 Dec 18, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
The House successfully impeached Clinton. Why can't you understand this simple sentence-
"The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers and shall have the sole power of impeachment." US Constitution Article I Sec 2
What part of "Sole power of impeachment" is confusing you?
I'm here to help!
FUN!
I have never once said the house did not impeach him, I know the house voted to impeach, but the house is not the end of it.

The Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments, we know all that

You have not answered my question yet

In what way was it a success? Which penalties spelled out in the impeachment were applied If None ( which we already know were none ) what exactly did the Impeachment successfully achieve?

You keep saying it was a success... in what way was it a success if it achieved nothing at all stated within it?

You arenít here to help, you are clinging to a provably invalid statement because you cannot face facts
FoolNorth A

Covina, CA

#13960 Dec 18, 2012
This posting from a FOOL, is quit common in Glendora, California and has been for sometime now.

North Alabama football player kicked off team for tweeting racist remarks during President Obama's speech to grieving Sandy Hook families.

University of North Alabama walk-on snapper Bradley Patterson tweeted,'Take that n-- off the tv, we want to watch football!'

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#13963 Dec 18, 2012
ANCOUVER, WA (KPTV)-

The Vancouver Police Department arrested a man for Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana in connection with a deadly crash in Vancouver.

Investigators said the driver hit and killed a pedestrian around 5:50 p.m. on East Mill Plain Boulevard and Andresen Road.

Police say the victim, a male in his 50's, was believed to be walking back from Safeway and stepped out into the middle of traffic.

The driver, Scotty Rowles, was driving westbound on East Mill Plain Boulevard and could not stop his car in time, according to police.

Detectives says Rowles cooperated with the investigation, but after interviewing him they determined there was enough evidence to arrest him on suspicion of driving under the influence of marijuana.

Police believe this is the first traffic fatality involving the drug, since it became legal in the state of Washington.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#13964 Dec 18, 2012
Ten bucks says the pedestrian was stoned as well.
A pfo

Covina, CA

#13965 Dec 18, 2012
Todd Akin doesn't give a crap about military readiness.
His only concern to to try and preserve any remnant of the good ole days when white, christian, heterosexual males (at least in public) were afforded actual legal superiority.
To be blunt, the guy is a complete loser.
The living embodiment of the worst America has to offer.
The fact that this guy was ever elected to office is a shame.
Unfortunately McCain, who once at least had some positive ideas is slowly slipping into the pit of ultra-conservative nonsense.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#13966 Dec 18, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never once said the house did not impeach him, I know the house voted to impeach, but the house is not the end of it.
The Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments, we know all that
You have not answered my question yet
In what way was it a success? Which penalties spelled out in the impeachment were applied If None ( which we already know were none ) what exactly did the Impeachment successfully achieve?
You keep saying it was a success... in what way was it a success if it achieved nothing at all stated within it?
You arenít here to help, you are clinging to a provably invalid statement because you cannot face facts
You say my statement that Clinton's impeachment was successful is "provably invalid". Well then, prove it invalid.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#13967 Dec 18, 2012
RiccardoFire wrote:
ANCOUVER, WA (KPTV)-
The Vancouver Police Department arrested a man for Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana in connection with a deadly crash in Vancouver.
Investigators said the driver hit and killed a pedestrian around 5:50 p.m. on East Mill Plain Boulevard and Andresen Road.
Police say the victim, a male in his 50's, was believed to be walking back from Safeway and stepped out into the middle of traffic.
The driver, Scotty Rowles, was driving westbound on East Mill Plain Boulevard and could not stop his car in time, according to police.
Detectives says Rowles cooperated with the investigation, but after interviewing him they determined there was enough evidence to arrest him on suspicion of driving under the influence of marijuana.
Police believe this is the first traffic fatality involving the drug, since it became legal in the state of Washington.
Yep... just like Alcohol

I have yet to see an argument for one, that could not be made against the other

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#13968 Dec 18, 2012
RiccardoFire wrote:
Ten bucks says the pedestrian was stoned as well.
It is illegal to drive under the influence of cannabis, it is not illegal to walk under the influence.

But you're right! Probably the pedestrian was stoned too. Probably burns it like that dope Anderson. It's the smoke that's bad!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#13969 Dec 18, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
You say my statement that Clinton's impeachment was successful is "provably invalid". Well then, prove it invalid.
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 )
MsClaus

Covina, CA

#13970 Dec 18, 2012
Oh dear, another posting from out of town.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#13971 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 )
If the impeachment was a failure it wouldn't have gone to the Senate where he was acquitted.

Did it go to the Senate Big D?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#13972 Dec 18, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
If the impeachment was a failure it wouldn't have gone to the Senate where he was acquitted.
Did it go to the Senate Big D?
The impeachment is tried in the senate yes

If you are ( still ) saying the house voted to impeach, yes they did we have covered that, we are talking about the success of the impeachment ( that would not even exist if the house did not vote to impeach )

Failure to achieve ANY of the objectives written into it is... a success or a failure?

“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

“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.

“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

Anderson, CA

#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!!

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 LA Gang F13 Accused of Targeting Blacks (Jan '08) 2 hr Louigi 57
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 5 hr femiguy 19,945
News Caitlyn Jenner: Kris mistreated me - I felt she... 7 hr Nathan Ehrlich 1
Local Politics Do you approve of Antonio R. Villaraigosa as Ma... (Nov '11) 10 hr Don FEDucci 22
time to end the birthright citizenship in the u.s. 10 hr DeportNow 1
News Justin Bieber`s life turned into a comic book (Jul '10) 11 hr Bill Big Un 12
News At the mercy of the climate jihadists 16 hr litesong 26
More from around the web

Beverly Hills People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]