Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Bruno]

Hey Ho Wakanatabi posted your picture !!! why?

[BillBoard]

Captain Beefheart says:

[Mike DiRucci]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes.,.. yet to meet, I don’t live in an area where I have met all that many bigots and woman haters Liar Mike, and I certainly don’t consider the once I have met a cross section of all republicans, but the racists and man haters I have met are republicans.
I know for a fact that not all republicans are.
You did it again Liar Mike :)
you never disappoint

Well at least you got off that Clinton wasn't impeached jag you were on. I finally convinced you that his impeachment didn't fail, eh? Good!

Now on to your bigotry. It is very stupid and bigoted what you said about republicans. It is that kind of selfish and ignorant attitude that is driving us over the fiscal cliff.

WOOHOO!

[Big D]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
Well at least you got off that Clinton wasn't impeached jag you were on. I finally convinced you that his impeachment didn't fail, eh? Good!
Now on to your bigotry. It is very stupid and bigoted what you said about republicans. It is that kind of selfish and ignorant attitude that is driving us over the fiscal cliff.
WOOHOO!

You never ever did find a single post where I said he wasn’t impeached Liar Mike

You remain a liar

[Mike DiRucci]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
You never ever did find a single post where I said he wasn’t impeached Liar Mike
You remain a liar

There are lots of them. Everyone has seen them.

You say Clinton's impeachment failed. If it failed, he wasn't impeached you dolt.

What a dope!

That you don't understand what impeachment means is the root of your stupidity and your embarrassment at being wrong is the driving force.
How do you like that psychobabble Dr. Phil?

WOOHOO!

[Mike DiRucci]

If I were going to go searching for old posts Big D, it would be the one where you apologized for being unaware that I didn't support Clinton's impeachment and the many after that where you lied and acted as if I did again.

If you are inclined to search old posts, show us one where I lied, liar jackass.

[Karma is a_______]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
There are lots of them. Everyone has seen them.
You say Clinton's impeachment failed. If it failed, he wasn't impeached you dolt.
What a dope!
That you don't understand what impeachment means is the root of your stupidity and your embarrassment at being wrong is the driving force.
How do you like that psychobabble Dr. Phil?
WOOHOO!

apparently you don't understand the impeachment process.

impeachment is like an indictment....in simple terms charges brought up on....

Clinton was impeached by the House of Representative but he wasn't convicted in the Senate

ergo the impeachment process was not completed

Clinton's impeachment failed.......

kinda like when someone is brought up on charges and found innocent...

[akpilot]

Karma is a_______ wrote:

<quoted text>
apparently you don't understand the impeachment process.
impeachment is like an indictment....in simple terms charges brought up on....
Clinton was impeached by the House of Representative but he wasn't convicted in the Senate
ergo the impeachment process was not completed
Clinton's impeachment failed.......
kinda like when someone is brought up on charges and found innocent...

The impeachment ends with the House. Go read the Constitution. Impeachment is nothing more than being formally charged.

The trial is a separate process which occurs in the Senate.

The "impeachment process" begins and ends with the House.

"The House of Representatives shall ... and shall have the sole power of impeachment." US Constitution Article I Sec 2

"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. " US Constitution Article I Sec 3

Now how could the Senate try an impeachment if it failed?

So yes, it is clear that you do not understand the "impeachment process."

[Gloo]

Hasn't been this good since YESTERDAY.

[Big D]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
The impeachment ends with the House. Go read the Constitution. Impeachment is nothing more than being formally charged.
The trial is a separate process which occurs in the Senate.
The "impeachment process" begins and ends with the House.
"The House of Representatives shall ... and shall have the sole power of impeachment." US Constitution Article I Sec 2
"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. " US Constitution Article I Sec 3
Now how could the Senate try an impeachment if it failed?
So yes, it is clear that you do not understand the "impeachment process."

Or you could continue to read the constitution and know more than you do now.

Article 1 Section 3

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

[Mike DiRucci]

Karma is a_______ wrote:

<quoted text>
apparently you don't understand the impeachment process.
impeachment is like an indictment....in simple terms charges brought up on....
Clinton was impeached by the House of Representative but he wasn't convicted in the Senate
ergo the impeachment process was not completed
Clinton's impeachment failed.......
kinda like when someone is brought up on charges and found innocent...

No, you don't.

It didn't fail. The House has the sole power of impeachment. The Senate cannot fail an impeachment. They can only try it. They did. And they acquitted Clinton. The process was completed. This in no way "fails" the House's impeachment. He was impeached he still is impeached.

[Big D]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
No, you don't.
It didn't fail. The House has the sole power of impeachment. The Senate cannot fail an impeachment. They can only try it. They did. And they acquitted Clinton. The process was completed. This in no way "fails" the House's impeachment. He was impeached he still is impeached.

Yes he was impeached and still impeached, however the impeachment failed the vote in the senate and not a single penalty listed in the impeachment was implemented.

Same with Andrew Johnson

both of them ended up failures and not achieving any of their stated objectives.

[Mike DiRucci]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Or you could continue to read the constitution and know more than you do now.
Article 1 Section 3
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

Quit your lying, you know that I know Article 2 very well. See how you lie?

The Senate cannot fail the House's impeachment, that is the House's sole power. The Senate can only try it. You insist the impeachment "failed in the Senate" it did not. It was tried in the Senate. They acquitted. This in no way fails the House's impeachment. You are wrong.

[Mike DiRucci]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes he was impeached and still impeached, however the impeachment failed the vote in the senate and not a single penalty listed in the impeachment was implemented.
Same with Andrew Johnson
both of them ended up failures and not achieving any of their stated objectives.

You're changing your tune jackass liar. Now you're saying the vote failed. Before you said that the impeachment failed.

[Big D]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
Quit your lying, you know that I know Article 2 very well. See how you lie?
The Senate cannot fail the House's impeachment, that is the House's sole power. The Senate can only try it. You insist the impeachment "failed in the Senate" it did not. It was tried in the Senate. They acquitted. This in no way fails the House's impeachment. You are wrong.

you can argue with the constitution all you like.. I don’t care Liar Mike

[Karma is a_______]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
No, you don't.
It didn't fail. The House has the sole power of impeachment. The Senate cannot fail an impeachment. They can only try it. They did. And they acquitted Clinton. The process was completed. This in no way "fails" the House's impeachment. He was impeached he still is impeached.

dude he wasn't found guilty of impeachment. The trial is part of the process...

"A process that is used to charge, try, and remove public officials for misconduct while in office.

Impeachment is a fundamental constitutional power belonging to Congress. This safeguard against corruption can be initiated against federal officeholders from the lowest cabinet member, all the way up to the president and the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Besides providing the authority for impeachment, the U.S. Constitution details the methods to be used. The two-stage process begins in the House of Representatives with a public inquiry into allegations. It culminates, if necessary, with a trial in the Senate. State constitutions model impeachment processes for state officials on this approach. At both the federal and state levels, impeachment is rare: From the passage of the Constitution to the mid-1990s, only 50 impeachment proceedings were initiated, and only a third of these went as far as a trial in the Senate. The reluctance of lawmakers to use this power is a measure of its gravity; it is generally only invoked by evidence of criminality or substantial abuse of power."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

again it appears to be you who doesn't understand the legal definition of impeachment and the process

[Big D]

Karma is a_______ wrote:

<quoted text>
dude he wasn't found guilty of impeachment. The trial is part of the process...
"A process that is used to charge, try, and remove public officials for misconduct while in office.
Impeachment is a fundamental constitutional power belonging to Congress. This safeguard against corruption can be initiated against federal officeholders from the lowest cabinet member, all the way up to the president and the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Besides providing the authority for impeachment, the U.S. Constitution details the methods to be used. The two-stage process begins in the House of Representatives with a public inquiry into allegations. It culminates, if necessary, with a trial in the Senate. State constitutions model impeachment processes for state officials on this approach. At both the federal and state levels, impeachment is rare: From the passage of the Constitution to the mid-1990s, only 50 impeachment proceedings were initiated, and only a third of these went as far as a trial in the Senate. The reluctance of lawmakers to use this power is a measure of its gravity; it is generally only invoked by evidence of criminality or substantial abuse of power."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
again it appears to be you who doesn't understand the legal definition of impeachment and the process

Wow, you are more eloquent than I am, I don’t think it will help him... but very well said.

[Gloo]

The more you talk about it the worse it gets.

[Mike DiRucci]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, you are more eloquent than I am, I don’t think it will help him... but very well said.

And AK is more eloquent than I, so I'll cut and paste his post on this-

The impeachment ends with the House. Go read the Constitution. Impeachment is nothing more than being formally charged.

The trial is a separate process which occurs in the Senate.

The "impeachment process" begins and ends with the House.

"The House of Representatives shall ... and shall have the sole power of impeachment." US Constitution Article I Sec 2

"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. " US Constitution Article I Sec 3

Now how could the Senate try an impeachment if it failed?

So yes, it is clear that you do not understand the "impeachment process."

[Mike DiRucci]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, you are more eloquent than I am, I don’t think it will help him... but very well said.

Eloquence schmeloquence. It's a cut and paste job. But notice he didn't say the impeachment failed. Because it didn't. If it had it wouldn't have gone to the Senate.

But you know this. Which is why you are changing your tune from "the impeachment failed in the Senate" to "the impeachment failed to get the votes in the Senate". Which is still wrong. They don't vote to "pass" or "fail" the impeachment. Only to convict or acquit.

You remain a devious liar and a jackass!

FUN STUFF!