TheHill reported Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) told Vice President Dick Cheney to “resign or face impeachment” Thursday night as three more House Democrats lent their support to a plan to impeach the vice president.
Go ahead. The Reppublicans screwed up by impeaching Clinton when they knew no Democrats would vote to convict. Go ahead and make the same mistake.“The vice president holds himself above the law, and it is time for the Congress to enforce the law,” McDermott said in a floor speech. “For the good of the nation, the vice president could leave office immediately.” McDermott was one of three House Democrats to come out in favor of impeachment Thursday, along with Reps. Keith Ellison (Minn.)
The Muslimand Hank Johnson (Ga.). Including the three lawmakers, seven members in June have shown new support for impeaching Cheney.
6 comments:
You just exposed your generalizing anti-muslim stance here. By writing as you do,
"[...]along with Reps. Keith Ellison (Minn.)
The Muslim
and[...]
You´ve invoked a way of arguing used by antisemites all over the world, where they do not have to present an argument against the viewpoint of someone who is of jewish descent, because in those cases, it´s sufficient to just point out that he or she is a jew, and everybody understand that the person is inherently evil and/or part of some kind of world-wide conspiracy to extend the "jewish cause" at the expense of everyone else. In the same way, you´re pointing out Keith Ellisons belief and thus you don´t have to justify your argument. He´s muslim, right? So he´s part of the islamic conspiracy to install a world-wide caliphate, his cause and Osama´s are the same, nothing he says can be believed and whatever he says can always be explained by this fact that he´s a muslim.
I guess you would ridicule this stance applied to jew, but applied to muslims, you act it out yourself (I´m not prejudiced - you know why? Black people really ARE lazy, so it´s not prejudice!)
Muslims really ARE as evil as the nazis made the jews out to be...
Suicide bombing was initiated by the Tamil Tigers, a secular group in mainly hindu Sri Lanka.
The last credible world-power with the strength to "take over" the world and mold it into it´s liking was christian Russia (under secular communist/Soviet dictatorship) the next one with that kind of strength will probably be konfucian China (by that time probably not under communist dictatorship any longer).
A few islamic groups are calling for a world caliphate, though no level-headed person believes it possible since the arab leaders (and that´s just a portion of all the muslim leaders) can´t even show a united front in regard to the palestine question, which is perhaps the issue were there is the greatest consensus in the arab world - how are they going to agree on who will lead and who will surrender their powers (which I´m sure no-one is prepared to do).
Most islamic groups fight occupiers and neo-colonial proxy-governments like the one in Saudi-Arabia.
How do you explain that being one out of the 1 300 000 000 muslims of the world discredits one from any rational thought in your mind? The number of suicide-bombers in relation to the number of followers, are greater within the Sikh religion of northern India, and in relation to the number of people in a certain ethnic group they are greater among tamils than among arabs.
Is it because one out of every hundred thousand muslims might be willing to to join al-Qaida or similar organisations? Must the other 99 999 be judged by the actions of that single person?
Is it because one out of every hundred thousand Muslims might be willing to to join al-Qaida or similar organizations? Must the other 99 999 be judged by the actions of that single person?
NO, but if the other 99,999 spoke out about the idiot in their ranks, and show how he is not representing Islam then people would find it easier to distinguish between them. But when the other 99,999 sit silently, hoping the terrorist will not attack them, how are we to know the difference.
Enjoy the blog, especially your last post. Traitors to the gallows! Gibbet Keith Ellison!
So, since the unjustified war of aggression against Iraq, NOT in response to any terror attack, NOT in response to any real threat, and executed before inspectors could determine whether there were any real threat because Bush and Blair both know there probably weren´t (just listen to Colin Powell´s pathetic presentation before the UN), since this war has killed from ten, twenty, to fifty times more civilian, innocent Iraqis than terrorists have killed americans, have you spoken out against this war?
If not, don´t you think your possibilities to make yourself heard and keep yourself informed is a bit better than a farmer on Sumatra (he should "speak out" -where?)
...
I don't agree with any of what you said, but I also don't see what relation it has to this post.
That´s because you never feel the need to measure your own actions with the same stick as you use to measure the actions of others! And that´s why you don´t have to present any hard arguments for your positions, you just say 'it is so' and then it is. The US invasion of Iraq WAS and IS just and good, no matter what those annoying iraqis themselves and a large majority of people worldwide might think, because you say it is. And when I present hard facts showing that the iraqi oil-resources were the real reason to invade, you just ignore it, because you have no arguments but you refuse to aknowledge that you´re wrong:
http://donsingleton.blogspot.com/2006/10/can-you-tell-sunni-from-shiite.html
"By 2010 we will need [a further] 50 million barrels a day. The Middle East, with two-thirds of the oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize lies"
Dick Cheney; US Vice-President, 1999
---
For fields that have already been discovered, but not yet developed, the proposed [new iraqi oil-]law stipulates that INOC will have to be a partner on these contracts. But for as-yet-undiscovered fields, neither INOC nor private Iraqi companies receive preference in new exploration and development. Foreign companies have full access to these contracts.
The exploration and production contracts give firms exclusive control of fields for up to 35 years, including contracts that guarantee profits for 25 years. A foreign company, if hired, is not required to partner with an Iraqi company or reinvest any of its money in the Iraqi economy. It's not obligated to hire Iraqi workers, train Iraqi workers or transfer technology.
The current law remains silent on the type of contracts that the Iraqi government can use. The law establishes a new Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council with ultimate decision-making authority over the types of contracts that will be employed. This council will include, among others, "executive managers from important related petroleum companies". Thus it is possible that foreign oil-company executives could sit on the council. It would be unprecedented for a sovereign country to have, for instance, an executive of ExxonMobil on the board of its key oil-and-gas decision-making body.
The law also does not appear to restrict foreign corporate executives from making decisions on their own contracts. Nor does there appear to be a "quorum" requirement. Thus if only five members of the Federal Oil and Gas Council met - one from ExxonMobil, Shell, ChevronTexaco and two Iraqis - the foreign company representatives would apparently be permitted to approve contracts for themselves.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB28Ak02.html
...
Post a Comment