Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[Yankguy1]

First. That ruling is moot in light of the House vote. ( although it is still being appealed)

A House vote has no influence on the validity of a judge's ruling that the inquiry is constitutional without one, or the precedent that ruling sets. 

Second. Impeachment is a political procedure. Read the Constitution.

Your point?  You said the House inquiry is in violation of the Constitution.  You still have not explained how.

The House inquiry is unconstitutional without a House vote.

Ah. That's it. It's bullshit. But that's it!

[REDSTATEWARD]

First. That ruling is moot in light of the House vote. ( although it is still being appealed)

A House vote has no influence on the validity of a judge's ruling that the inquiry is constitutional without one, or the precedent that ruling sets. 

Second. Impeachment is a political procedure. Read the Constitution.

Your point?  You said the House inquiry is in violation of the Constitution.  You still have not explained how.

The House inquiry is unconstitutional without a House vote.

Ah. That's it. It's bullshit. But that's it!

Nancy figured it out. I’m sure it will come clear to you sometime.

[NeedsAdjustments]

First. That ruling is moot in light of the House vote. ( although it is still being appealed)

A House vote has no influence on the validity of a judge's ruling that the inquiry is constitutional without one, or the precedent that ruling sets. 

Second. Impeachment is a political procedure. Read the Constitution.

Your point?  You said the House inquiry is in violation of the Constitution.  You still have not explained how.

The House inquiry is unconstitutional without a House vote.

So you say.  I pointed out that a Federal Judge ruled otherwise.  And am still waiting for your counter argument.

[NeedsAdjustments]

First. That ruling is moot in light of the House vote. ( although it is still being appealed)

A House vote has no influence on the validity of a judge's ruling that the inquiry is constitutional without one, or the precedent that ruling sets. 

Second. Impeachment is a political procedure. Read the Constitution.

Your point?  You said the House inquiry is in violation of the Constitution.  You still have not explained how.

The House inquiry is unconstitutional without a House vote.

Ah. That's it. It's bullshit. But that's it!

Nancy figured it out. I’m sure it will come clear to you sometime.

"Nancy" is not holding a vote because she suddenly figured out that the impeachment inquiry is unconstitutional right after a judge ruled it constitutional.

She is taking the opportunity of that validation to call Republican's bluff on procedure objections.  And Republicans are walking right into that trap (see McCarthy's most recent nonsensical comments.)

If you have any real argument for the inquiry being unconstitutional, post it.  Otherwise, STFU.

[josh]

Since I don't read as well as you do, can you point it out to me?  Specifically, what part of the Constitution has been violated? Thanks!

Article One Section2

No.

Liar.

Article 1 Section2.
It’s a pretty simple sentence.

Yup! Though not the only pertinent one.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall
have the sole Power of Impeachment.

and

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Which is why you are wrong, Ward. It's simple. It's just not what you say it is.

[Yankguy1]

 "Nancy figured" what out?

[josh]

First. That ruling is moot in light of the House vote. ( although it is still being appealed)

A House vote has no influence on the validity of a judge's ruling that the inquiry is constitutional without one, or the precedent that ruling sets. 

Second. Impeachment is a political procedure. Read the Constitution.

Your point?  You said the House inquiry is in violation of the Constitution.  You still have not explained how.

The House inquiry is unconstitutional without a House vote.

No.

Impeachment would be constitutionally impossible without a House vote, Ward, but the inquiry into things short of an actual impeachment are not impeachment.

Not even a good dodge.

[josh]

The President’s Granite State Co-Chair and a legislator from Londonderry now claims *he* is black on the nightly news in New Hampshire...due to his tan.

(This weekend he asked if Senator Kamala Harris was African American.)

[bankshot1]

There's a great scene from the movie True Romance between Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken on the subject of darker skinned Italians.

it was written by Tarantino and its NSFW so some may also find it offensive

[REDSTATEWARD]

First. That ruling is moot in light of the House vote. ( although it is still being appealed)

A House vote has no influence on the validity of a judge's ruling that the inquiry is constitutional without one, or the precedent that ruling sets. 

Second. Impeachment is a political procedure. Read the Constitution.

Your point?  You said the House inquiry is in violation of the Constitution.  You still have not explained how.

The House inquiry is unconstitutional without a House vote.

No.

Impeachment would be constitutionally impossible without a House vote, Ward, but the inquiry into things short of an actual impeachment are not impeachment.

Not even a good dodge.

LOL.
Thanks for proving my point.

[REDSTATEWARD]

First. That ruling is moot in light of the House vote. ( although it is still being appealed)

A House vote has no influence on the validity of a judge's ruling that the inquiry is constitutional without one, or the precedent that ruling sets. 

Second. Impeachment is a political procedure. Read the Constitution.

Your point?  You said the House inquiry is in violation of the Constitution.  You still have not explained how.

The House inquiry is unconstitutional without a House vote.

So you say.  I pointed out that a Federal Judge ruled otherwise.  And am still waiting for your counter argument.

A Federal Judge did no such thing.

[REDSTATEWARD]

"Nancy figured" what out?

Article 1 Section2

[Yankguy1]

Why do you post here?

[Hairy Lime]

First. That ruling is moot in light of the House vote. ( although it is still being appealed)

A House vote has no influence on the validity of a judge's ruling that the inquiry is constitutional without one, or the precedent that ruling sets. 

Second. Impeachment is a political procedure. Read the Constitution.

Your point?  You said the House inquiry is in violation of the Constitution.  You still have not explained how.

The House inquiry is unconstitutional without a House vote.

No.

Impeachment would be constitutionally impossible without a House vote, Ward, but the inquiry into things short of an actual impeachment are not impeachment.

Not even a good dodge.

LOL.
Thanks for proving my head comes to a point.

FIFY.

Always fun to see Red try to spin something that proves him wrong as something that proves him right. Almost as much fun as watching strict constructionists expand and add provisions to the constitution when it suits their political ends. The Constitution does not prescribe the process by which the House exercises the power of impeachment. Having staked his claim, Red will not admit being wrong no matter the evidence.

[REDSTATEWARD]

The Constitution does not prescribe the process by which the House exercises the power of impeachment.

LOL
It most certainly does.
Nancy Pelosi agrees, finally.