Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Mike DiRucci]

Winston Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
You didn't get my getting it. Quit taking things so seriously. What'd I tell you yesterday (or maybe the day before)?

Loosen up Winnie.

[Mike DiRucci]

Winston Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't say we shouldn't be able to impeach. What I said is it seems to be a partisan affair, not a rational or reasoned one. As it is now it is a sham. Or a shame of a sham, or is it a sham of a shame? None of them should be above the law, but it appears few of them aren't. Sort of, IYSWIM.
This is a product of a party system, especially a two party system. The founding fathers knew the pitfalls of parties yet acted in a fashion to develop them. Seems to be a natural inclination. Likewise there seems to be a natural inclination to villify the opposition to the max, often in a fashion that defies reality while completely ignoring the scum floating around in one's own party. Almost, as in damn near but not quite, to the point of deification of one's own party.
The lunacy we've got today isn't at all new. People were violent and aggressive from the outset. Pistols at dawn!

We get a president committing high crimes and misdemeanors we impeach the bastard! The offended party be damned.

[Mike DiRucci]

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
Rose is right. Consider the fact that 18,000 children starve to death each day.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Disturbing%20T...
There is one death every 12 minutes due to automobile crashes in the United states.
http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many-peopl...
How many people died?
Non-issue bro.

Don't know what you're talking about toots. Sorry.

[Bazooks]

Bubble gum has made a come back.

[Fa-Foxy]

Bazooks wrote:

Bubble gum has made a come back.

I remember Bazooka Joe, and the gum cost one cent AND you got a comic with it.

[Wat the Tyler]

Only 6 more days till Supreme Court decides to whether or not hear Prop 8/DOMA!

Legalized marriage equality federally!

[KiMare]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Truth:
Denial would be a slightly easier place if your parents had aborted you.
Do you think they should have?
:)

Smile.

[Mona Lott]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
No the Senate tries an Impeachment.
If the impeachment does not pass the trial in the Senate, then there are no consequences as the impeachment has failed.

Then Clinton wasn't impeached?

[Mona Lott]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
The "story" mentioned the UN, so I'm betting it's a fundie organization, one of those "end times" groups. They fixate on the UN because they think it's existence fulfills the prophesy of a one world government, or some such.

I have a prophesy, too. lol......

[Mona Lott]

Hide-n-go seek wrote:

<quoted text>NO,only the retard black gay people who are just as subhuman as gays. In other words, we are talking about you. You don't believe in Jesus, so his death was not for you. Homosexuality is a mental disorder, so the devil lives for you.

Aw...... is somebody feeling inferior today??? Aw..... poor thing. I have a secret to tell you. Projecting your self-hatred onto others won't help. A little education will help.

[Big D]

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>Then Clinton wasn't impeached?

I have never said that once, he was impeached by the house, and the impeachment failed in the senate on Feb 12 1999

and the intent of the impeachment to remove Clinton from office did not happen because the impeachment failed.

[Mike DiRucci]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I have never said that once, he was impeached by the house, and the impeachment failed in the senate on Feb 12 1999
and the intent of the impeachment to remove Clinton from office did not happen because the impeachment failed.

Funny stuff!

[Big D]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny stuff!

It is funny, we aren’t talking about opinions here, but established facts. We live in a time when people will not accept a fact that they don’t like.

Clinton was impeached by the house

That impeachment failed in the senate that tries impeachments

Clinton was not removed from office as stated in the impeachment.

And people still argue, it is hilarious

[Mike DiRucci]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
It is funny, we aren’t talking about opinions here, but established facts. We live in a time when people will not accept a fact that they don’t like.
Clinton was impeached by the house
That impeachment failed in the senate that tries impeachments
Clinton was not removed from office as stated in the impeachment.
And people still argue, it is hilarious

Too funny! The impeachment DID NOT FAIL. If it had, it wouldn't have gone to the Senate. If it had, you wouldn't be agreeing that he was impeached!

What a dope!

[Big D]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
Too funny! The impeachment DID NOT FAIL. If it had, it wouldn't have gone to the Senate. If it had, you wouldn't be agreeing that he was impeached!
What a dope!

The impeachment called for his removal from office, if it had succeeded he would have been, but it failed in the senate on Feb 12 1999 which tries impeachments ( look it up )

Or are you arguing that he was removed from office?

ROFLMAO!!!!

[NonPsycho Mike DiRucci]

I can't believe youse guys is still arguing this:

Impeachment is only a step in a longer process:

Step 1: House votes on impeachment. Yes = success. No = failure.

If "yes", on to step 2.

Step 2: Trial in Senate. At this point, the "impeachment" phase is over and it is no longer an impeachment, it is a Trial. Then on to Step 3.

Step 3: Verdict. If verdict is "No" end of process. If verdict is "Yes", on to Step 4.

Step 4: Punishment.

So let's review:

Yes, we had an impeachment. Since we had a Trial, the impeachment was a "success".

We had a Trial, and we had a verdict of "No". Depending on your view, you can take that as a success or a failure.

Look at it this way: Impeachment is like starting your car in the morning. If it starts, success! Now, if you're driving down the road, drop your coffee, look down to retrieve it, look up, suddenly realize that you've drifted over the center line and are about to run head-long into a bus, yank the wheel right, overcompensate and bounce off the K-rail projecting your car hard to the left, crossing all lanes of traffic and careen down the cliff on the far side of the road, you may have failed in your ultimate objective, but the impeachment--I mean--"starting of the car" was still a success.

[If it]

If it moves then salute it.

[Mona Lott]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I have never said that once, he was impeached by the house, and the impeachment failed in the senate on Feb 12 1999
and the intent of the impeachment to remove Clinton from office did not happen because the impeachment failed.

If the impeachment failed then how was Clinton impeached?

[Mike DiRucci]

NonPsycho Mike DiRucci wrote:

I can't believe youse guys is still arguing this:
Impeachment is only a step in a longer process:
Step 1: House votes on impeachment. Yes = success. No = failure.
If "yes", on to step 2.
Step 2: Trial in Senate. At this point, the "impeachment" phase is over and it is no longer an impeachment, it is a Trial. Then on to Step 3.
Step 3: Verdict. If verdict is "No" end of process. If verdict is "Yes", on to Step 4.
Step 4: Punishment.
So let's review:
Yes, we had an impeachment. Since we had a Trial, the impeachment was a "success".
We had a Trial, and we had a verdict of "No". Depending on your view, you can take that as a success or a failure.
Look at it this way: Impeachment is like starting your car in the morning. If it starts, success! Now, if you're driving down the road, drop your coffee, look down to retrieve it, look up, suddenly realize that you've drifted over the center line and are about to run head-long into a bus, yank the wheel right, overcompensate and bounce off the K-rail projecting your car hard to the left, crossing all lanes of traffic and careen down the cliff on the far side of the road, you may have failed in your ultimate objective, but the impeachment--I mean--"starting of the car" was still a success.

You are correct.

Now SCRAM troll!

[Big D]

NonPsycho Mike DiRucci wrote:

I can't believe youse guys is still arguing this:
Impeachment is only a step in a longer process:
Step 1: House votes on impeachment. Yes = success. No = failure.
If "yes", on to step 2.
Step 2: Trial in Senate. At this point, the "impeachment" phase is over and it is no longer an impeachment, it is a Trial. Then on to Step 3.
Step 3: Verdict. If verdict is "No" end of process. If verdict is "Yes", on to Step 4.
Step 4: Punishment.
So let's review:
Yes, we had an impeachment. Since we had a Trial, the impeachment was a "success".
We had a Trial, and we had a verdict of "No". Depending on your view, you can take that as a success or a failure.
Look at it this way: Impeachment is like starting your car in the morning. If it starts, success! Now, if you're driving down the road, drop your coffee, look down to retrieve it, look up, suddenly realize that you've drifted over the center line and are about to run head-long into a bus, yank the wheel right, overcompensate and bounce off the K-rail projecting your car hard to the left, crossing all lanes of traffic and careen down the cliff on the far side of the road, you may have failed in your ultimate objective, but the impeachment--I mean--"starting of the car" was still a success.

not sure which side you are arguing on.
Yes he was impeached by the house who have the sole power to impeach
No the impeachment did not pass trial in the senate which has the power to try impeachments
Not a single penalty called for in the impeachment was carried out because it did not pass the sennate
They may call that a success, I don’t.
I have never once said he was not impeached, I have said ( repeatedly ) that the impeachment failed in the senate ( which it did ) and that was the end of it, not a single intent of the impeachment for punishment called for was carried out.
Maybe it is the word "successful" they need to look up