<letoured@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message news:xPR5h.2730$T_.1061@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In <4HH5h.1066$yE6.234@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, on 11/12/2006
> at 04:09 PM, "Larry Stimely" <stimely@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>
>
>
> >> 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.
>
>
> You have proof they didn't lie to make a war? That is a high crime.
>
My question do you have proof they did? If you do and you with hold it
could
be charge with a high crime?
>
> Next time, get the facts before speaking. You don't have them now.
What
> you do have is the right wing ideology -- that can't see what has
happened
> under the right wingers and is afraid to find out.
If he doesn't have the facts what are the facts - your argument is empty
without substantiating facts and what you say is simply left wing ideology
-
so give us the truth, the facts. With them you will be seen as a god-send
to
this forum.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> 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.
>
>
>
|
