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.
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.
>> 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.
|
