In <4d2dncZ9DdybzcfYnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, on 11/14/2006
at 03:23 PM, "Dan" <djfoster@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
><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?
Hmmm must be you've been on another planet or something for the past few
years. There were NO WMDs found in Iraq. Not even a trace of any
production, as claimed. The UN inspectors said so before the invasion.
Thus the claims are lies used to make a war. Period. End of discussion.
Now stop the right wing whining.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
|
