Recommended Posts
Lucky... 0
>>>>>>>>Quit calling it MY party. It is NOT my party.
I'm so sorry, the LIbertarians are 3% different than the Repubs, my bad. That's why Paul is running as a Repub - same thing.
>>>>>>>Yep. That's it. It's not about what is the right thing, it's about winning or losing. YOUR party will win. The OTHER party, and the AMERICAN PEOPLE will lose.
Like when Clinton inherited 7% unemp, recesion, soaring debt, and brought unemp to TO 1USD =1.55 CD. We were out of wars, the world hated us less, we were shrinking the military to where it s/b and killing the deficit and greatly lowering unemp. Er, I'm sorry, how did teh US people lose?????
>>>>>>>I have no feelings on it, really. I see pluses and minuses. It makes foreign cars more expensive, as well as other goods manufactured abroad, and oil, but since I consume very little and use very little fuel, it makes little difference to me personally.
I see, mitigate the bad deeds of your sister party.....nice. Mitigate the good deeds of the party you oppose. Brilliant. Let's look at it objectively, hwo is it EVER a good thing when the US dollar will be cut in half during your sister parties terms? 8 years, house prices double, gas prices tripple, the dollar falls in half....... but of course it's not your party even tho you defend virtually every Republan move on this board ![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
>>>>>>>As an aside, do you give any credit whatsoever to the brilliance of the monetarists in Europe or Canada? Or is it just Bush's fuckup.
Uh, when the rest of the world minus Mexico and a coule others are shining and we're sinking, DO THE MATH.
>>>>>>>>As another aside, are you a closeted monetarist? If so, you should look into the writings of the late great Milton Friedman and his wife, Rose, as well as David Laidler. Read up on Greenspan and "irrational exuberance," which we saw in the tech boom and bust in the 1990's and the property bubble of the last 4 or 5 years.
If you have an argument to make that Clinton had nothign to do with the fiscal success of the US or that he was somehow at fault for somethng, you make it, counselor.
>>>>>>>Check HERE from 2003 - "I am not a bushite
So was the admin full of shit about the WMD's? Yeah, probably. It's terrible when Republicans stoop to these tactics they so despise, i.e., telling people a reason they can stand behind whilst doing something for another reason altogether.
The problem is that they learned from the left that these tactics are effective
What I discern from that is that you blame any ill deeds from the right on the left. Hardly makes your point.
>>>>>>>>>Or from 2003 - "I did not support the war in Iraq."
You wanna try to make the point that you don't agree with Repubs on most issues? Whatever... Tell, how do you feel about organized labor, social welfare, etc? You are a fiscal righty.
>>>>>>>>>>>I do NOT agree with it. I never DID agree with it. And I disagree that "collateral damage" is worth it in these situations.
Oh, you think the dropping of the bombs was a bad thing? Apparently not enough to voice it in the recent threads, but you have made your stance.
>>>>>>>>>>However, it seems to be something that YOU agree with. You compare the Democrats to a war machine that will take out 200-300k women and children to get to the final objective. I find this viewpoint to be personally abhorrent.
I totally disagree with it. I liked FDR's local policies, you know, taking from the rich to provide for the poor, something you adamantly disagree with. FDR was right to initiae the Manhattan Project, but Truman was wrong to drop it on women and children. Remember, I like Eisenhower type presidents, hated what I know of TRuman. You would probably like that Truman was not for labor tho, the very issue that caused his popularity to droop post WWII.
>>>>>>>>>>Why do you so support the idea of collateral damage? Do you support the idea of burning your house down so that rioters cannot? It's what you are arguing.
I don't, those are your words. I used collateral damage in regard to impeaching Bush and that we should not.
>>>>>>>>>>>I'm a little sick of your venting.
I'm sick of years of Repugs runnung this country into the ground, revoking anything for the people and advocating all things for the rich.
>>>>>>>>>>So what you are saying is that Cheney's crimes aren't worth impeachment.
I'm sure they are, but the potential cost is that voters might think we're as petty as the party of garbage and vote the junk back in. Just wait it out, let it go. History will basically impeach these 2 criminals.
>>>>>>>>>I can't close my shop, you know. I've got 6 employees who count on me to feed their children and keep them insured. You know, the thing that only government is supposed to do.
What's next? Tie me to the stakes and light a fire under me for heresy?
Seeing as how your subjective believes of my political affiliation are absolutely incorrect when objective reality is taken into consideration, I believe that the entirety of this post is similarly fantastic. Which is a shame, because we agree on certain points.
We agree on much, but you think that workers are to be exploited IMO. You would rather die than to allow any unionization. You likely agree with Bush when he interviened into union / employer dealings, threatening to void contracts. As I'm sure you agreed with Reagan and his anti-union dealings. In reality I don't blame the greedy American business owner, I blame he pathetic American worker who crosses his brother's picket line for a few weeks ofbig money. In socialized nations you don't find this as often. The US is the only industrialized nation that doesn't have federal laws govering minimum vacation time and most mandate 4 weeks/year. American workers have bought into this trickle down BS fueled by fear of shit handed down to them from businessmen.....that's my beef.
As for your political affiliation, yea, just keep telling yourself that Republicans and Libertarians are far different. Hell, even the platform of the Republicans isn't so demented that they shove off social ills to charities, theinking they have the resources to handle even 10% of them. I would vote Republican before I would vote Libertarian.
>>>>>>>>>>My personal belief is that it is NOT sufficient to impeach Cheney. My problem is that the Democrats should not forward ideas they have no idea of following through with. The reason is that it was not based on "principle." It was based on gamesmanship by the Dems. They played a game that the Republicans won.
And even if you're right, the people have lost, so let's hold our breath and get thru it.
>>>>>>>>But why don't you use what I say against me, instead of your interpretations of my Republican leanings?
I'd rather not use it against you at all, I'd rather discuss the issues for what they are. Although I did go there but more/less in sarcasm. I'm not indicting you for yoru beliefs, butLibs are like Repubs in most ways.
Lucky... 0
QuoteFrom the Hill
Leading The News
Republicans keep Cheney impeachment bill alive
By Jonathan E. Kaplan | Posted: 11/6/07 4:35 p.m. [ET]
November 06, 2007
House Republicans on Tuesday prevented Democratic leaders from blocking a resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney.
The vote to table the privileged resolution, offered by Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinch, began as a largely party-line vote to kill the measure, but Republicans developed a strategy to force Democrats to debate the resolution by supporting Kucinich. GOP leaders felt as though it was in their interest to debate the measure because it would make Democrats look bad.
After more than an hour of waiting for the vote to close, the motion to table the resolution failed by a vote of 162-251 after Democratic leaders failed to convince a group of liberal caucus members to side with them.
Republican lawmakers and aides credited Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) for coming up with the idea.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Interesting move. Hard to beleive that the R's would go this route if there was evidence and they were protecting thier own
Rush, it's what we're talking about here bro..... an impeachment of either of these pieces of trash by the Dems would help the R's. The R's are considered by many to be pathetic for impeaching Clinton for lying to congress, obstructing, etc, then pardoning Libby, then to find Lott was fucking his secretary while leading the charge against Clinton.
If you are the NE Patriots and are playing the Jets in week 16, why pull out all your trick plays and play your starters? Same thing, the Dems will likey own politics in the US for quite a while, so think about it; what is there to gain?
- After the 9 years of Reoub leadership leading to the Great Depression, we had what, 5 or 6 terms of Dems.
- The we had Eisenhower for 2 after Truman fucked everything up.
- Then JFK died and we had LBJ who really fucked up with VN.
- So then we had Nixon who fucked up, handed off to Ford whio fucked up by pardoning Nixon
- Then we got the absentee president Carter who did nothing, huge inflation, etc...
- So then the pendulum swung hard right for most of 30 years and has been there.
- It's time.......... We will likely have lefties in for several terms depending upon what the dems are able to accomplish. If the $ ever raises to be a huge issue, as it is with the tanking USD, and people lift their heads from the sand to see what caused it they will see that Republican military overspending and careless deficit spending was the cause and a long change will be in affect.
In conclusion, an impeachment will only help the Repubs and do nothing but hold a couple POS acountable, politically accountable which counts for nothing for 2 criminals who have already stripped this country to the bone and couldn't care less.
_
Lucky... 0
>>>>>>>>>>Agreed. But saying you are going to impeach him and then saying, "No, we're not" is the wrost of that world. that's what this whole post was about - saying they'd do something, having the chance to do it, and then backing off.
Yep, perhaps the Dems realized what was started and realized the ramifications. My kneejerk reaction is to impeah, but after deliberation I think not.
>>>>>>>>>I think the Republican party is that of fiscal scum suckers. I think the Democrats are the party of fiscal scum suckers. Neither are my party.
Libertarians actually have it right.
Just curious how you plan to finance the garbage truck to scoop up all the bodies of the elderly and ill. You are a bright guy, I've asked several Libertarians this and none have yet to even come close:
Draw out a financial plan, what we have now in regard to collection and what we now pay out to where. Then describe your utopian plan. I would love to see it on paper other than, "I shouldn't have to pay for your ________." We are a society of people, we have to care for each other even if that means the rich will have to pay for the poor.
>>>>>>>>>>That's why I didn't listen to them. It's like Dem arguments about Bush leaving millions of poor children uninsured with his veto. It's not what happened, but what mobilizes people who don't think shit through and take their beliefs from Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken or from American Spectator or MoveOn.Org. Unreasoned bs.
I agree in tha there is a lot of marginal BS out there, but when the country is in such bad shape and we can look at the last 7 presidencies and point out 5 that incredibly carried a huge deficit, the other 2 killed it, then see which party they are with, I think we can sort thru some the shit. The Libertarians are not only untested in any kind of dominant role, they have nothing on paper.
>>>>>>>>>Chaffee. Voted against the war and was defeated. A guy with balls who did the right thing. I'll salute THAT Republican. And I can also say I voted for Barbara Boxer, as well, in 1992 because thought I liked Bruce Herschenson a lot, I did not think he was well-suited to being a senator. I voted against her when she ran against Bill Jones last time.
So there was 1?
>>>>>>>>>>It is DRAMATICALLY different. I side with the left on most issues including the 4th amendment and war on drugs and personal freedoms and privacy - I thought the Warren Court philosophically got it right, though I abhor HOW they did it. I side with the left on the war in Iraq.
I side with the right on issues of gun ownership and property rights.
I side with neither on the belief that the federal government should be limited. I side with the originalists on their view of the commerce clause and believe that taxes are too high. I believe that I should be left alone by the government.
I know what a Libertarian is and they are fiscall right and morally/socially left. But EVERY Libertairian I've had the pleasure to talk to goes right if pushed. Their fiscal side outweighs their social concern everytime I've talked to them. Are you different? I don't see it. I think Regan had early ties to the Lib Party, look at Paul flip-flopping across the line. If you wanna claim that you ride down the middle, I won't call you a lair as you are sincerely a nice guy, but you know what I'll be thinking 
.
>>>>>>>>>>- Corporate immunity? I'm against it. Treat a corporation like a person, which is what the law actually does.
And this is one of the biggest POS in the law now. This makes you hardcore right. In the 1880 something railway decision they call a corporation a person and fiscal scum has used this for corporate immunity. Could it be that you have a corp/LLC and enjoy that immunity?
>>>>>>>>>- Taxes for the rich? So long as the poor and middle class are taxed, too, I have no problem. If the poor and middle class aren't taxed liek the wealthy, then there is a fundamental unfairness to it.
And if the taxes are the same, we will have the lopsided POS we now have. Sorry, but you have to adjust taxes to ensure the poor are cared for or you will have the garbage we now have with 1 in 6 w/o any healthcare and all the homeless......shameful. Yet we have 10X the # of billionaires than nation #2 and they manage to provide healthcare for their people. Pathetic.
>>>>>>>>>>- Socialized medicine? I'm against it. Government intrusion in the freedom of choice of the people.Dems are FOR this form of government intrusion. Repubs against it.
Not that complicated, the rich are for, well, keeping the rich rich. The dems are fopr the poor.
>>>>>>>>7) Labor unions - As presently consituted, I am against them. If labor unions were subjected to the same antitrust laws as everybody else, then I'd have no problem. But if you think corporations get protection, whoa, you should see unions. Guess why the mob ran them? They are money making MACHINES that would make Exxon blush.
That's the Repub fear tactic that makes you a Repub. You're easy to figure out and I don't blame you: you are well off and wanna stay that way, fuck the poor, not your problem. Uh, when the president interviens into private labor contracts for corporations they have broken all concepts of free enterprise. Just keep exploitin 
>>>>>>>>>- Deficit spending? I'm against it completely. Dems are NOT against it in the slightest. Neither are Republicans.
Really? Currently you cannot show examples to support that, counselor.
>>>>>>>He inherited a slumping economy and left a slumping economy. During his term in office the national debt increased.
see what I mean?
No I don't see what you mean, he inherited 250B / yr deficit and left at least a horizontal deficit (no increase), perhaps a decrease. Eisenhower was the last to do so. The debt increased 1.5T until his fiscal policies, tax increases for the rich, enabled a balanced budget.
I'm sorry, indicators that evidence a slumping economy? Compare them to late 88, late 92, late 02..... waiting.....
mnealtx 0
QuoteSearch through your own posts -- the facts have been presented to you ad nauseum here. I refuse to beat my head against a wall.
You might do best searching for laughing smiley faces, if that's possible.
Facts? Bullshit - if there were FACTS and PROOF they would have already been impeached.
Inference and
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteSearch through your own posts -- the facts have been presented to you ad nauseum here. I refuse to beat my head against a wall.
You might do best searching for laughing smiley faces, if that's possible.
Facts? Bullshit - if there were FACTS and PROOF they would have already been impeached.
Inference andconspiracy theoryinnuendo, more like.
Listen one time Mike and everyone:
AN IMPEACHMENT IS A POLITICAL INDICTMENT, NOT CRIMINAL, THE HOUSE ACTS AS THE GRAND JURY AND IF A "TRUE BILL" IS ISSUED (or the political equivalent) THEN THE IMPEACHMENT IS COMPLETE. WITH A MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE AND A FAIR MARGIN, THEY WOULDN'T EVEN NEED ALL THE DEMS TO VOTE FOR IT AND PERHAPS A FEW R's WOULD CROSS-OVER ANYWAY, HOPING IT WOULD BETTERTHEIR CHANCES FOR REELECTION.
The reason for no indictment has zero to do with facts and everything to do with political posturing by BOTH sides. The current R's have thrown the 2 pieces of garbage to the wind years ago, they want the future, they want to hit 20T debt within 2 or 3 more terms, they want to have 1000 bilionaires and more impoverished people, they want 1 in 6 to have medical coverage rather than the 1 in 6 that don't have it. In order to have these they need to resort to desperate measures by making the D's look as pathetic and worthless as the R's are and have looked during the Clinton impeachment and subsequent 2 terms where the country has fallen apart.
The R's are scrambling and scared, scared that every person might actually have medical coverage and the spread might become closer.
See kids, it's not that difficult, they could impeach based upon sheer numbers in the House and not evidence, and get blown out in the Senate and impeachment would be complete, the R's would rally that around as if the Dems are as pathetic as the R's. See all the CDIF idiocy and related acronyms? Well, the R' are reaching for that in Washington too. If your party fucks things up as bad as the R's have for 20 of the last 28 years, they want company on the choping block, it is the duty of the D's to not willingly walk onto that chopping block. If the R's can assimilate the bad deeds of the right to the left, they win. If the D's ignore the idiocy, they win.
Royd 0
Are you representative of the intelligence of the party you represent?Quotedickwipe,Horseshit, dickhead , fucking stupid Repukes
nope he is just remembering the terms of endearment that have been used in the description of himself.
SkyDekker 1,121
QuoteFacts? Bullshit - if there were FACTS and PROOF they would have already been impeached.
Come on, that logic just doesn't fly.
I think Lawrocket has hit it right on the head. Even if they had all the facts in the world, impeachment would not be in their best interest.
Just because their is no impeachment doesn't mean there are no grounds or facts to support it.
That argument is especially dishonest coming from supporters on the right. Just think back to previous presidents and your stance on their legal battles.
Well done by the Republican party. Smart play!!
Lefty 0
QuoteYep, perhaps the Dems realized what was started and realized the ramifications. My kneejerk reaction is to impeah, but after deliberation I think not.
Makes me wonder how many positions you took in that novel of a post were just knee-jerk. You should really think about some of them.
Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin
-Calvin
QuoteQuoteAnd we want to get YOUR party out of office,
Quit calling it MY party. It is NOT my party.Quoteeven if it means letting one of YOUR criminals go.
Yep. That's it. It's not about what is the right thing, it's about winning or losing.
And we have a winner, folks.
Quotethey want the future, they want to hit 20T debt within 2 or 3 more terms, they want to have 1000 bilionaires and more impoverished people, they want 1 in 6 to have medical coverage rather than the 1 in 6 that don't have it.
Um, have you thought about rationality for a second?
Do you honestly believe that Republicans WANT people impoverished? Do you honestly think that Republicans WANT to make sure that people have no health coverage? do you honestly believe that Republicans are conspiring to push national debt to $20T?
All I can say is, "WOW!"
My wife is hotter than your wife.
What is the damnedest thing is that he is painting HIS party as the most evil, gutless, misanthropic "by any means necessary" party out there. If what he writes is true, then the Dems pose a unique risk because they will do whatever it takes to get in power and probably stay in power.
We're seeing this in Pakistan right now - it matters not what the right thing is, the most important thing is to stay in power.
The sad thing is that Lucky doesn't see that. The Republicans are just plain wrong. Lucky attaches an evil motive to them, but they are just wrong. Meanwhile, he describes the Dems as being those with a depraved heart. He compared Democratic strategy to "collateral damage."
Edited to add: I myself do not see the Democrats like that. My belief is that they do not have enough to to actually impeach Cheney. However, it's a nice soundbite to say "We are looking into impeaching Cheney." A trial balloon to let the people know that Cheney is on their mind.
But, they never really intended to do anything. They were bluffing - gamemanship. And the Republicans called the bluff, beating them at their game. The Dems KNEW that they did not hold the cards to take the pot, and folded because to move forward would be to look like huge asses.
More interestingly, why did Dems not want to debate it on the record?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
AWL71 0
QuoteWhat is the damnedest thing is that he is painting HIS party as the most evil, gutless, misanthropic "by any means necessary" party out there. If what he writes is true, then the Dems pose a unique risk because they will do whatever it takes to get in power and probably stay in power.
We're seeing this in Pakistan right now - it matters not what the right thing is, the most important thing is to stay in power.
The sad thing is that Lucky doesn't see that. The Republicans are just plain wrong. Lucky attaches an evil motive to them, but they are just wrong. Meanwhile, he describes the Dems as being those with a depraved heart. He compared Democratic strategy to "collateral damage."
Edited to add: I myself do not see the Democrats like that. My belief is that they do not have enough to to actually impeach Cheney. However, it's a nice soundbite to say "We are looking into impeaching Cheney." A trial balloon to let the people know that Cheney is on their mind.
But, they never really intended to do anything. They were bluffing - gamemanship. And the Republicans called the bluff, beating them at their game. The Dems KNEW that they did not hold the cards to take the pot, and folded because to move forward would be to look like huge asses.
More interestingly, why did Dems not want to debate it on the record?
There was nothing to debate. The Dems had nothing to impreach Cheney on besides the fact that they don't "like" him.
I guess "collateral damage" is OK if it keeps you in power. What a telling statement. Power is what it comes down to. I can't believe that any person believes that either party is doing what is best for the country. The majority are there for the power and advancing there own agenda. I hope another candidate comes along that is not part of the establishment.
The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
QuoteQuoteMore interestingly, why did Dems not want to debate it on the record?
There was nothing to debate. The Dems had nothing to impreach Cheney on besides the fact that they don't "like" him.
And the fact that Pelosi is clearly smarter than Dennis "squeaky elf" Kucinick.
mnealtx 0
QuoteI guess "collateral damage" is OK if it keeps you in power. What a telling statement. Power is what it comes down to. I can't believe that any person believes that either party is doing what is best for the country. The majority are there for the power and advancing there own agenda. I hope another candidate comes along that is not part of the establishment.
Exactly - I like pointing out that they're all shitbags on both sides of the aisle...
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Lucky... 0
QuoteAre you representative of the intelligence of the party you represent?Quotedickwipe,Horseshit, dickhead , fucking stupid Repukes
So using expletives establishes intelligence? I would write, "pot / kettle" but that wouldn't apply as I actually posted much substance. Address the issues instead of being....pretending to be hurt by the language.
Lucky... 0
Quotenope he is just remembering the terms of endearment that have been used in the description of himself.
More correctly ..... you.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteFacts? Bullshit - if there were FACTS and PROOF they would have already been impeached.
Come on, that logic just doesn't fly.
I think Lawrocket has hit it right on the head. Even if they had all the facts in the world, impeachment would not be in their best interest.
Just because their is no impeachment doesn't mean there are no grounds or facts to support it.
That argument is especially dishonest coming from supporters on the right. Just think back to previous presidents and your stance on their legal battles.
Well done by the Republican party. Smart play!!
FActs....evidence? Who cares? An impeachment is simply a popularity contest. If you have more friends in the House, you won't be impeached.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteYep, perhaps the Dems realized what was started and realized the ramifications. My kneejerk reaction is to impeah, but after deliberation I think not.
Makes me wonder how many positions you took in that novel of a post were just knee-jerk. You should really think about some of them.
Well instead of being a Republican and posting no examples, post some.
I thought my positions clearly. And from the party that says - fuck teh homeless - let's not be thin skinned with language.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuotethey want the future, they want to hit 20T debt within 2 or 3 more terms, they want to have 1000 bilionaires and more impoverished people, they want 1 in 6 to have medical coverage rather than the 1 in 6 that don't have it.
Um, have you thought about rationality for a second?
Do you honestly believe that Republicans WANT people impoverished? Do you honestly think that Republicans WANT to make sure that people have no health coverage? do you honestly believe that Republicans are conspiring to push national debt to $20T?
All I can say is, "WOW!"![[:/]](//www.dropzone.com/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png "[:/]")
- Do you honestly believe that Republicans WANT people impoverished?
Explain class disparity then. Was it a byproduct, was in chance, what was it? It seems to be the fashion when your party is in, oh I'm sorry, you're 3 degrees off Republican - my bad. Explain how it has happened. Even your hero, Reagan gave far lower pay raises than military hater Clinton. Counselor, I hope you have bench trials and you play golf with the judge.
- Do you honestly think that Republicans WANT to make sure that people have no health coverage?
Your boy urged Congress to write legislation to where employer-provided health insurance woud be taxed, hoping employees would refuse it. And there was some BS tax break on the back end that would soon be abolished. The 35B for impoverished kids, killed twice was it, or did he not get around to the 2nd one yet? And he is begging for 200B for his Ind Mili Complex.... In addition to the 550B they spend on normal military ops. Do the math counselor.
- do you honestly believe that Republicans are conspiring to push national debt to $20T?
Unfortunately not a conspiracy, just 5 terms of Repuke protocol slamming the debt from 1T to >9T. Do you think the Repukes wouldn't have it there if they were in office for another 2-3 terms? Be real.
- All I can say is, "WOW!"
All I can state is, "Quit the rhetotical questions and provide some evidence." How about outlining the Libertarian plan based upon current revenues, etc.... not gonna happen, huh?
Lucky... 0
>>>>>>> If what he writes is true, then the Dems pose a unique risk because they will do whatever it takes to get in power and probably stay in power.
And when inpower, what did they do? Instead of Ad Homming me, support your points. Have you ever had post-conviction relief sought after you for ineffective counsel? Perhaps you don't do criminal. Anywho, I've posted factual data and yet little / no repsonse. I motion you are, well, ineffectively representing your Repub Party.
>>>>>>>>>Meanwhile, he describes the Dems as being those with a depraved heart.
Not at all, you skewing my words - motion to strike.
I've established the Dems as the party that wants everyone to have healthcare, homelessness to evaporate and the rich to be taxed, I guess you view that as evility. Now go back to being the self-annointed hero for employing people as you previously stated.
>>>>>>>>Meanwhile, he describes the Dems as being those with a depraved heart. He compared Democratic strategy to "collateral damage
Uh, no. Your words / thoughts.
>>>>>>>>>Edited to add: I myself do not see the Democrats like that. My belief is that they do not have enough to to actually impeach Cheney. However, it's a nice soundbite to say "We are looking into impeaching Cheney." A trial balloon to let the people know that Cheney is on their mind.
WHat does it take to impeach either criminal? 216 votes? Big deal, what do they have, 235 seats or so.
>>>>>>>>>>>But, they never really intended to do anything. They were bluffing - gamemanship. And the Republicans called the bluff, beating them at their game. The Dems KNEW that they did not hold the cards to take the pot, and folded because to move forward would be to look like huge asses.
And lawrocket the non-Republican is so very busy defending the Repubs. My affirmative defense to your garble is that you defend Republicans with personal faith, attack teh Dems, YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN EVEN THO IT IS EMBARRASING!!! - feel your pain
The Repukes want the impeachment as it is their only chance; converge the 2 parties to attempt to make them the same.
>>>>>>>>>>>>More interestingly, why did Dems not want to debate it on the record?
They don't want to discuss it all, as it distracts from the real issues: Iraw, debt, healthcare, etc.... all the things your party wants to either converge with the Dems or misdirect from.
Agreed. But saying you are going to impeach him and then saying, "No, we're not" is the wrost of that world. that's what this whole post was about - saying they'd do something, having the chance to do it, and then backing off.
I think the Republican party is that of fiscal scum suckers. I think the Democrats are the party of fiscal scum suckers. Neither are my party.
Libertarians actually have it right.
That's why I didn't listen to them. It's like Dem arguments about Bush leaving millions of poor children uninsured with his veto. It's not what happened, but what mobilizes people who don't think shit through and take their beliefs from Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken or from American Spectator or MoveOn.Org. Unreasoned bs.
Chaffee. Voted against the war and was defeated. A guy with balls who did the right thing. I'll salute THAT Republican. And I can also say I voted for Barbara Boxer, as well, in 1992 because thought I liked Bruce Herschenson a lot, I did not think he was well-suited to being a senator. I voted against her when she ran against Bill Jones last time.
It is DRAMATICALLY different. I side with the left on most issues including the 4th amendment and war on drugs and personal freedoms and privacy - I thought the Warren Court philosophically got it right, though I abhor HOW they did it. I side with the left on the war in Iraq.
I side with the right on issues of gun ownership and property rights.
I side with neither on the belief that the federal government should be limited. I side with the originalists on their view of the commerce clause and believe that taxes are too high. I believe that I should be left alone by the government.
- Gay marriage? I'm for it.
- Social Services? Against them, unless via charity. It constitutes a government intrusion.
- Taxes for the rich? So long as the poor and middle class are taxed, too, I have no problem. If the poor and middle class aren't taxed liek the wealthy, then there is a fundamental unfairness to it.
- Corporate immunity? I'm against it. Treat a corporation like a person, which is what the law actually does.
- Gov intrusion? Against it. Let gays marry. Don't tax people. Treat corporations the same.
- Socialized medicine? I'm against it. Government intrusion in the freedom of choice of the people.Dems are FOR this form of government intrusion. Repubs against it.
7) Labor unions - As presently consituted, I am against them. If labor unions were subjected to the same antitrust laws as everybody else, then I'd have no problem. But if you think corporations get protection, whoa, you should see unions. Guess why the mob ran them? They are money making MACHINES that would make Exxon blush.
- Abortion? Private choice for which the government has no business intruding.
- Stem cell research? I'm all for it.
- Deficit spending? I'm against it completely. Dems are NOT against it in the slightest. Neither are Republicans.
He inherited a slumping economy and left a slumping economy. During his term in office the national debt increased.
see what I mean?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites