Lucky...

Ha! Just today: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3008831#3008831 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3008172#3008172 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3008804#3008804 Okay. A valid defense, professor. I believe they call that an affirmative defense.

>>>>>>>>>Right now I'm not registered as a member of either party,... Dd you deregister or register Indep? You've recently voted I see. >>>>>>>>>It's why I've voted for Arnold the Governator twice now, in hopes that moderate leaders will bring this party of white supremacy to its senses before they start goose stepping in public. Uh, too late. BTW, your post reeks of apology for being a Repub. Hell, wear it like a badge, as you wrote, Nazi, they've been that for 3 decades or more. >>>>>>>>>>>I really don't give a fuck anymore who the Dems run for President, they've already lost the election. HUH? Ir wouldn't amtter if I won the Dem nod, no Republican will win the WH this time.

>>>>>>>>>>If someone tells lies "only" 20% of the time, does that make them honest? How about if they only steal a few times a year? Does that mean they're not theives? What if they honestly fuck the country into the ground, does that make then noble? Even if the Repukes never lied, they have fucked the country into the ground as of the last 2 years or so, care to debate that? (HINT: provide examples) >>>>>>>>>>Those others, like Coulter, can be outrageously funny. You probably don't see it because you side with the people they're making fun of. Difference is that Repuke pundits tend to be more cutting like Coulter, Dems tend to be sarcatic. I think we should do as the Repukes and elect candidates based on semantic nothing, rather than agenda.

Yea...... and what's he killing??????......oh, I see t's the deficit he's killing....... Then...... to the rescue.......THE REPUKES - TO THE RESCUE: i'LL SAVE YOU MR. DEFICIT, YOU WILL GROW AND THRIVE UNDER US..........brilliant.

No. Then open your eyes and you will see it I see it. And your favorite news sources have based their existence on it. Now there is an accusation I would like to see you back up! And remember, we are talking a pattern here. Not isolated incidents BHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHA. What does frequency have to do with it? Nanny-nanny-boo-boo - you do it more than we do..... now, back to the previously argued issues......

No. Then open your eyes and you will see it Your very signature labels people as stupid.

>>>>>>>>>>Actually, I wrote an analysis of yoru points. I made no substantive points of my own. Just analyzed yours. 1) 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. 2) 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. 3) 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. 4) More interestingly, why did Dems not want to debate it on the record? No, you made some points, just failed to support them as I wrote. >>>>>>>>>>>>Interesting - the same platform they had since FDR. From what I understand, they problems got worse and worse - even WHEN the Dems were in power. They could have gotten national heatlh care in 1993 or 1994 but did nothing except get their asses tossed out. They tried to get socialized meds in 93, the Repub Congress refused to go along. That point is so far wrong that I really wonder about your knowledge. I realize that your president thinks he’s a king and has run the country down under his personal monarchy, but as soon as he leaves we will hopefully return to normal American politics whether it be a Democracy or a Republic. As for Soc Med since FDR, I don’t think the push was on then, as employers easily provided it then. If you’re gonna knock the social accomplishments of FDR as not doing enough to socialize the country, well, I can’t help ya there. >>>>>>>>>>>Yep. And they STILL won't do it because doing the right thing ain't their priority. It's staying in power. Thus, homelessness will live on (so that they can say they are fighting for it), national health care will live on (they'll probably actually get it, so they can spend the next 3 score working to fix it). And they'll tax the rich because, well, someone needs to pay for their programs (and the wealthy dems in Congress will exempt themselves from it) Getting in power is the right thing so then they can do the right things. Impeaching garbage that history will remember as that garbage does nothing, simplistic revenge is the doing of the right-wing losers. Is it more important to memorialize the presidency of your guys as horrible, or is it prudent to just wait and let the turds finish, the turds that would virtually finish their term by the time an impeachment and unlikely removal were to be completed? You just hate the fact of some poor person actually getting social svs. Man, If I ever needed a Court Appointed Attorney I would be hating life if it were you, but I imagine most CAA’s feel the same. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Ever notice that liberals are more apt to label people than conservatives? That happens both ways, but ever wonder why conservatives spend time acting insulted as a misdirection instead of approaching substantive points? When out of gas, act hurt and focus on that rather than feeling concerned for the poor. Perhaps that’s why liberals call the conservative assholes, uncompassionate. Then GHW Bush tries this, compassionate conservatism BS…..kinda cements the notion they know they are uncompassionate. Pure pathetic semantics to care who calls what to whom. Motion to strike, irrelevant and immaterial. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Ever notice that the party of peace and love is the party of hate and villification. Let me guess - you hate me because I'm sooooo intolerant. So even if the Dems were to go on calling everyone scum garbage, etc, etc, but then ensure all people had enough to eat and medical coverage you would focus on the semantics of what they said rather than what they do, huh? You’ve well tipped your hand, counselor. >>>>>>>>>>>The shit they've had ten months to work on? And have done exactly Jack and Shit? They aren't working on it. THey're busy passing budgets that add to the national debt Oh, by trying to get 35B for poor kid’s healthcare? Yea, what a bunch of spenders w/o a conscience. As for done shit, your president vetoed 1 bill, the stem cell bill, and no others so congress had a rubber stamp. Now he’s axed how many? With King George in power they can’t get anything done. Your party has surely dug a grave that logic would think will relegate

Have you been paying attention to the US stock markets, lately? And have you seen junior's grades?

Uh, no. It's 1CD = 1.09 USD When Clinton left office it was 1USD = 1.55CD http://www.oanda.com/convert/classic Shitstain will at least cut the value of the USD in half as compared to the CD by the time he leaves, maybe more. Thx all who voted for shitstain.

A little disturbing, but that is telling the results of our dollar being so low. Is there anything that can be done to bring it up? Vote Democrat.

Nope. It's cyclical. What goes up must come down and vice versa. . I think not. There's no sign of cyclic behavior in the Zimbabwe dollar, for example. The $US will stay down as long as we insist on spending more than we have, and the Republicans are the worst offenders. fixed it for ya

Awesome perspective - never linked it even tho I knew it was 1973 when the US barely dipped below the CD. Yea, war is hell alright, hellaciously expensive. Killig innocent people costs more than it used to

Unless you have a strong background in economics I think it's too difficult to fully understand, I know I don't. I do know some basics of teh economy and it's general applications. - If the economy is so great, people are spending money. Job market and the value of the dollar aren't totally connected. Actually, American labor/products become a better bargain when the dollar is dying, so perhaps that explains some of it. - I think they are just using credit cards and owing money. Perhaps, but the job market is currently strong. I think that might have to do with giving employers tax breaks and being able to employ a lot of people. But as we've seen, trickle down works all the time for the rich, sometimes for the poor, and never for the longterm economy. - The stock market is up That means the rich are getting richer. Hell, even during the Carter Admin recession and during the 1990-91 recesion the market increased - not really a good indicator. - unemployment steady in the 4% range W/o checking isn't it 4.5 to 4.7? But not bad at all. - interest rates low Not really a good sign, the Fed Res lowers rates to stimulate the economy, raises to slow it for fears of inflation. For example, during Clintons heyday, late 90's, the basic home loan was 7-7.5ish. Remember houses cost 1/2 of what they now are. - Why is the U.S. dollar worth about as much as a popcorn fart these days. No, popcorn farts cost 2 bucks Many reasons, the war has cost 1/2 trillion. Remember, we've been a debtor nation since 1840 and carried 1T in 1980, now >9T. To think the war accounts for 1/18th of the debt that is 170 years old: WOW. I think the reserve has ordered the mint to run 24/7 pumping out $$, so when there is more, each is worth less. I collect old casino chips, if a chip is known to have 10 survivors, they are worth plenty, but if a box is discovered the value plumets. Understand that the debt is owned by the gov and by the public, about 50/50. China holds >1T of our debt, it is said they are holding it to keep our $$$ falsely inflated so their labor is a better bargain. >>>>>>>>>So please explain without trying to make me feel like a dumb ass or making this a GWB sucks thread why the dollar is so low. BTW, all 3 pieces of garbage are at fault, Bush Sr the least at fault. If not, explain this: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

>>>>>>Like Kallend said.... Thanks George. CORRECTION: Thx all those who voted for him in 00, a special thx for all those who voted for him in 04 after he is obviously a trainwreck.

Exactly - I like pointing out that they're all shitbags on both sides of the aisle... And if we were with the same parties we are with now, but back in the late 60's, I would be assuming your stance as well. When your party sucks, you want to correlate and converge both parties. Speaking of stance, what stance is Larry Craig taking on Iraq?

>>>>>>>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. Wholly agree. The Repubs have shown they will rip everything from the former middle class and pawn the future of this country via deficit spending, so the Dems are the far better choice, don't agree with it all.

>>>>>>> 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.

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!" - 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?

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.

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.

More correctly ..... you.

Are you representative of the intelligence of the party you represent? 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.

Facts? Bullshit - if there were FACTS and PROOF they would have already been impeached. Inference and conspiracy theory innuendo, 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.

Yep, to deaf ears. Just curious why the spacing matters? Doesn't matter to me, just playin around.

>>>>>>>>>>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.....