> Now that the progressives have won control of Congress why would they
> decide to impeach the President and the Vice President? Has either
> committed an impeachable offense?
They wouldn't...because they didn't. You can't impeach someone because
you
disagree with them.
> President and Vice President can be impeached based on high crimes and
> misdeameanors. Has President Bush or Vice President Cheney committed
high
> crimes or misdemeanors? Have they committed treasonable acts?
> The Republican Congress attempted to impeach President Clinton on that
> basis and they failed. Why would a progressive Congress waste their
time
> in this way?
Normally, they wouldn't and I hope they don't.
For one thing, it isn't a progressive Congress. It's mostly a midwestern
Blue Dog Congress, and they're going to need Bush's sup****t on certain
issues that are coming before them.
Jim Webb (the guy who beat Allen, in case you didn't know) couldn't stop
talking about the birthday of the Marine Corps and all the kids fighting
overseas and his having lunch with Allen next week. That doesn't sound
like
a radical liberal to me. It sounds like a conservative Democrat...and
that's what he is and that's why he won. Virginia is red and it always
will
be. I've spent a lot of time there. I know.
There are some economic data coming out next week (flipping of the yield
curve, housing starts way down, the recent GM and Ford losses) that
suggest
we're going into a recession. We were starting to come out of a downturn
when 9/11 happened and Greenspan inflated the bejeezus out of our money
supply to hold off a depression. We're paying for that now. Reference
some
of the things Arthur Burns (old time chief of the Federal Reserve in the
1970s) said about the stagflation problem during that period.
Did you know that over half of the jobs created in California since 2000
came from real estate? That's scary.
I also heard Goldman Sachs was responsible for the drop in gasoline prices
right before the election. Paulson and some of his people were playing
with
the markets to try and keep Congress Republican. It didn't work and now
the
prices are headed back up. Fancy that!
>>> We could have a female (Democrat) President and it would not be
Hillary
>>> Rodam Clinton.
Get a spell checker. You sound like a moron.
Don't they teach English in the College of Education?
> Hillary Rodam Clinton may or may not decide to run for President. She
is
> very influential at this point and will be more influential now that the
> Democrats are in control of the Senate. Senator Clinton is a very wise
> woman and she may elect to stay in the Senate. She knows, far better
than
> most hopeful presidential candidates, what the powers of the president
> are, what limitations the president has and how difficutlt it is to be
> president. I think it likely that she will decide the powers as a
Senator
> outweigh the powers of the president. I think it likely that she will
be
> unwilling to be examined by the microscope that presidential candidates
> put themselves under.
Did you know that no Democratic President has ever been elected without
carrying five southern states? Not even Clinton. Look it up.
Did you also know that every President we've had since Jack Kennedy has
been
from the Sunbelt? That's no accident. It's about demographics and the
gradual migration of our professional population away from the Rust Belt
into states that are more business friendly...like North Carolina, Georgia
and Florida.
> Nancy Pelosi will be the Speaker for the House of Representatives. She
> may want to be President but she wants to be elected by the popular
vote,
> ie. if she wants to be president she will run for the office.
>>
>>> *Regime change anyone ?*
How does Nancy Pelosi carry Ohio and Florida? She doesn't.
Kerry won Pennsylvania by one percentage point. Pelosi would not do as
well.
There are serious doubts as to whether Hillary could carry Ohio OR
Pennsylvania. Even so, she'd be very unlikely to carry the border states
(West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri) and therefore could not counter the
inevitable southern Electoral juggernaut. That's precisely what got Gore
in
2000. He failed to carry Tennessee, Arkansas and West Virginia which
meant
he needed Florida. It didn't happen.
Do you know why he couldn't carry his home state or Clinton's home state?
Yep...gun control. The NRA got him. They'd get Pelosi, too.
> I think there will be a regime change in 2008.
Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.
>> If they will they will force you right wing kooks into cl***** for
>> reading
>> comprehension and cognitive reasoning -- instead of throwing people
into
>> secret prisons where they are tortured -- it will be a good thing.
Who the hell is "they"?
It's been my experience that liberals' primary weakness is emotion and
lack
of focus in battle. They can't handle pressure.
When someone's got me in a corner, I straighten up, relax, *****s the
situation, pull my resources together and go kick some ass with what I
have.
The typical liberal starts crying and bellyaching and waits for someone to
take pity on him...and THEN I hit him in the head!
> Who is "they"? Why do you ascribe the right wing as "kooks" Why go
into
> ad hominem attacks? Why do you think that those on the right wing of
the
> spectrum need reading comprehension and cognitive reasoning instruction?
> This is nonsense. While I don't believe that imprisoning people and
> torturing them is the ethical way to behave, I can see why my opponents
> have differing perspectives. Terrorism is frightening. People believe
in
> fighting fire with fire. Me, I think thats a way to burn down
everyone's
> house.
>> Now take the right wing kook stuff somewhere else.
> Right wing kook stuff. Left wing kook stuff. Lets try to get away from
> calling names and look to what we can do to solve the problems our
nation
> and our world face.
> ~Cate
I like your attitude.
I'm a fairly conservative Republican, but we've got problems as a nation
that need consensus solutions...not cowboy solutions.
Don't be a stranger.
|
