Lucky...

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. _

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

>>>>>>>>>>Fact, no articles of impeach were brought because there is no evidence to back it up. Agreed!!! Sorry Lawrocket, butt there is no evidence, hence no impeachment grounds..... now, can we hold our breath so we can get thru the next year and 2 months so we can ignore the trash party for several terms? Nothing to see here, just get thru it.

>>>>>>>>Then why did a congressman tell me something entirely different once I said, "What you are saying makes no sense?" I can't explain why Larry Craig told you that? >>>>>>>>>Again, gutless, ball-less sacks of shit. "Oooh, I cant' say 'Bullshit' to this! I'll lose campaign funding. I mught get chastised. Oh, boo hoo hoo. Bush is MAKING me vote this way." I agree that the Dems aretoo nutless, but as opposed to the trash that the Repukes are, I'll take nutless. If Bush had done nothing during his term, we would be far better off. BTW, saying no to something isn't the same as initiating a campaign that will benefit the criminal party. Simply not choosing to impeach a president isn't refusing to enact something. Hell, if you read the geniuses on here they would tell you that there still are WMD's there, just well hidden, so then there is no basis fo which to impeach, right? - I know you'll just skip that point - >>>>>>>>>Don't look, but you made an excuse for Dems being chickenshit. I do think the Dems are too chickenshit, are you willing to admit your party is that of fiscal scum criminals? NNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooo.....even tho you know it's true. Again, if we listen to Repuke garbage, we would larn that there were WMD's, just well hidden, hence no impeachable offense. Sorry counselor, no Corpus Delecti. >>>>>>>>>>>>>By the way, here is a list of Senators who had balls to vote against the war (number 23 - and 17 are still in office): The very forst vote, could have been for the Patriot act, but I thought it was for war funding. Hmmm, maybe the 98-1 senatorial vote was for the PA. >>>>>>>>By the way, here is a list of Senators who had balls to vote against the war (number 23 - and 17 are still in office): Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Chafee (R-RI) - defeated and left in Jan. 2007 Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) - left Senate in Jan. 2006 to become governor of New Jersey Dayton (D-MN) - retired in Jan. 2007 Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (D-FL) - he retired from Senate in Jan. 2005 Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) - retired and left Jan. 2007 Kennedy (D-MA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) - retired Jan. 2007 Stabenow (D-MI) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR) I keep looking and I can't find a Republican there. I guess Jeffords if you count Repub defectors. >>>>>>>>>>Yep. Of course, the Dems lack sufficient balls to do it, don't they. Perhaps it is because ending the war is not as important as winning the election. So what's another few hundred or thousand deaths? So long as they win in 08... Get my drift? And winning the election means gaining control --> hence leaving Iraq. Losing the election means means at least 4 more years of trash. >>>>>>>>>1992 - Andre Marrou 1996 - Ross Perot (the only time I voted to keep someone OUT instead of voting my conscience) 2000 - Harry Browne 2004 - Mike Badnarik Wait, you voted for a Libertarian or 2, oh, wait, wait,.... that's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay different than a Repub *sigh* >>>>>>I have thus NEVER voted for a Republican OR Democrat in a presidential election. Because I cannot tell a difference IN PRACTICE between these parties. Right, same thing: 1) Gay rights / marriage Dems for them Repubs tried to pass a const amendment against them 2) Social svs Dems for them Repubs do all they can to avoid them 3) Taxes for the rich Dems raise them Repubs lower them 4) Corporate immunity Dems against it Repubs for it 5) Gov intrusion Dems against it Repubs for it 6) Socialized medicine Dems for it Repubs against it 7) Labor unions Dems support them Repubs fight them 8) Abortion Dems for the right Repubs against the right 9) Stem cell research Dems for it Repubs against it 10) Deficit spending Dems Against it Repubs for it So I see what you mean, carbon copies.... >>>>>>>>The Republicans and Dems say plenty of different things, but sex, alcohol, money, power and votes are the driving forces of both of them. And the outcomes are completely different. Look at what Clinton inherited and what he left. Look at what each of teh 3 idiots inherited and what they left.

>>>>>>>>>So, are you saying that the public would buy the republican argument? Which would lose the election for the Dems? Are you saying the Dems are less about doing the right thing than winning an election? If so, I am in full agreement with you. Yes, exactly. And we want to get YOUR party out of office, even if it means letting one of YOUR criminals go. It's the American way, hell, we let Sammy the Bull go on 26 paid murders (5 years) so we could get Gotti. BTW, how do you feel about YOUR president running the dollar from over 1.5 times the Canadian to 6 cents< the Canadian buck in < 7 years? After all, you are basically a fiscal ight guy, youmust be proud; be sure to vote in another loser. >>>>>>>>>When is it EVER right to keep a danger to the country in power? I dunno, I was gonna ask you the same thing, I mean, you're a lawyer, you certainly could see the writing on the wall and you reelected the criminal? Now you'll say you didn't vote that way ...... yea right. But to keep the criminal party out for the next several terms by lasting out the turd for a year is worth it, it's kinda like colatteral damage as we killed 200-300k women and children - trying to write in terms you can agree with. >>>>>>>This will only happen if the Republicans take the House or Senate (or both) in 2008 or 2010. Whatever, all we can say for sure is that Dems will take more seats in both houses and the White House in 08. Can't guess for the next midterm. >>>>>>>>Because it is the right thing to do. Party politics is not. From a guy who likely has the opinion killing 200-300k women and children with the bombs was the right thing to do, I think suffering for another year and 3 months, really 6 months by the time of removal is teh right thing to do. Again, comming off as petty as the Repukes did over the impeachemnt and then discovering Lott was fucking his secretary and pardoning Libby, I think the Dems have the sense to not drop that low and be as pathetic as the Repukes and they will bide their time. I'm really sorry, but you will have to deal with Hillary. I mean I am real fucking sorry, should I say..... I feel your pain? >>>>>>>>>Much like history will show that the death was caused by the loss of blood. Sure, we could have stopped it 18 months previously, but why lose a dead body as a campaign issue? It's always better to have a dead body than a live body as a campaign issue. Why stop the bleeding now? To be real, removal is HIGHLY unlikely. Even your parties first loser to be impeached, removal was as close as 1 vote, and he was impeached for many things, esp usurpation of power as he ignored Congress, so they had it for him. There are enough robots in your party that the 67 needed votes would not be met, but the adverse pub to the Dems would be realized, so it would work well for your party. Gee, let me say it again, I'm real fucking sorry that your employer taxes may go up as Hillary is elected, perhaps consider closing shop in protest.

ALL of Congress should be involved in it, too. Put them ALL to lie detectors about exactly what they thought were the reasons for going to war. The Democrats are enaged in "plausible deniability." The Democrats supported the effort to go to war, and now claim that they were lied to. If they bought it (which they didn't) then how fucking stupid are they saying they are? "Bush is an idiot and a moron. And he's a liar! We've always known he was an idiot and a moron, but who would have thunk that he would be smart enough to pull the wool over our eyes." They are ALL full of shit. A congressman told me prior to the war that they were going to Iraq to clean up the block, and once the people of the middle east saw what freedom was like, they'd follow suit. "Broken windows." They ALL knew it. Well said And written

ALL of Congress should be involved in it, too. Put them ALL to lie detectors about exactly what they thought were the reasons for going to war. The Democrats are enaged in "plausible deniability." The Democrats supported the effort to go to war, and now claim that they were lied to. If they bought it (which they didn't) then how fucking stupid are they saying they are? "Bush is an idiot and a moron. And he's a liar! We've always known he was an idiot and a moron, but who would have thunk that he would be smart enough to pull the wool over our eyes." They are ALL full of shit. A congressman told me prior to the war that they were going to Iraq to clean up the block, and once the people of the middle east saw what freedom was like, they'd follow suit. "Broken windows." They ALL knew it. >>>>>>>>The Democrats supported the effort to go to war, and now claim that they were lied to. Uh, they were. Ken Mehlam, former RNC dickwipe said as much on Meet the Press by way of; -Congress had the exact same intel as the pres -Er, I mean COngress had basically the same intel as the pres....... Horseshit, dickhead set up COngress by telling them lies, and the one defect from Wisconsin is now considered a genius, then probably thought a... terrorist. Get it? >>>>>>>If they bought it (which they didn't) then how fucking stupid are they saying they are? In the following weeks and months after 911, if a politician did anything but vote to go, go, go, go he/she would be chastized. Same way cops get funding and other branches of gov they wait for perfect timing and require legislators to react w/o choice. Right now, if teh Desm cut off the gifts to Bush's buddies war machine, the reaction from the Repukes is: how could you starve the troops. Get it? >>>>>>And he's a liar! We've always known he was an idiot and a moron Didn't you vote for him? I think far more of the criminal than do I think of Bush voters.

Another example of the democratic majority having absolutely no balls...they even had help from republicans to make the discussion a reality. A debate on impeachment would have been entirely appropriate, and called for. Bravo to Kucinich for introducing the measure. As much as I would like to see it happen, if we did the Repubs would use it as fodder to say the Dems wanted to get majority so they can waste millions on an impeachment as the Repukes did. It is the right thing not to, as removal would only relieve this country from turd for what, less than a year, maybe 6 months? And then skew the 08 election and open the door for irregular things. The Dems have already won, why change things? I think we'll see Dems for the next several terms, so why muddy the waters. As a footbal analogy, the lesser teams comes out using trick plays and crazy shit, the better team just does what they do best and virtually always the better team wins, even if the lesser team gets a little lead early. I too would love to see the criminal disgraced with an impeachment, but why risk the future with a bit of fun. History will really show what this pos and the last 3 Repukes have done to this country, esp fiscally.

Yep, to deaf ears. Just curious why the spacing matters?

I think this one was by George H.W. Bush, and it referred to the U.S.S. Vincennes shooting down an Iranian commercial airliner, killing some 300 innocent civilians. Blues, Dave Can you blame GHW? After all, he was part of the machine that looked for the city most rich in women and children when deciding where to drop the bombs.

they are only hypocrits if they fail to call out there own (or even defend) yet try to take action on the other party's teammember (goes both ways) What, SPECFICALLY are the Dems hypocritical about?

>>>>>>>1. Dems crow about a Republican getting caught in some sort of scandal or generally make some sort of slur. No, Dems crow about the party that advertises relief from social ills like adultry, homosexuality and all the other moral corruption, is the one actually perpetuating it at all or a a much higher rate than the party they advertise to protect society from. >>>>>>>>>>>2. Evidence is shown that the Dems have been caught in the same shit or equally as shitty as their example in 1), above. Sure, just not now. Sorry, I'll buy you a calandar if you wish, but Carter is no longer in office and LBJ's VNis far over. If you wish to talk history we can, but if you want to talk contemporary politics to establish who is CURRENTLY the best party for America then we can't LOGICALLY go back that far. Mike, is it intelligent to refer to FDR, Hoover or George Washington when we decide who to vote for in 2008? Of course not, so let's talk the last 10-20-30 years, that makes more logical sense. >>>>>>>>>3. Dems try the "CDIF" defense...usually by way of the RDIF / GHWDIF defense or the Lewinsky Redirect (always a crowd pleaser). Actually the CDIF is not a Dem defense, it is a Republican rationalization. WHat did Clinton do first? Balance the budget? Bring some rights and opportunity back to the people? Get a blowjob while in office and the Oval Office? I highly doubt it, I bet the walls could tell some stories. I doubt Clinton did many things first. >>>>>>usually by way of the RDIF / GHWDIF defense Repubs did it first / GHW Bush DIF? Uh, when did Bush senior play into this? Are you trying to write GW Bush? Again, I don't think any of these entities did anything first. What are the Dems claiming the Repubs did first and as a defense to what? (go ahead and skip over that one Mikey) >>>>>>>>>>>4. Dems (again) fail to realize that their own party is equally as scummy as they accuse the Reps of being. Did the Dems: A) Run the debt from 1T to 9+T and climbing? B) Order wiretaps and now try to immunize telecom companies for their role? C) Slam the US$ from 1USD = 1CD TO 1.06USD = 1CD? D) Gain world hate E) Have many Repub figures commit lewd acts while impeaching Clinton for lying about sexual indescencies and performing homosexual acts? F) And many, many others..... BTW, how's your boy Trent Lott, you know, the one who was calling for Clinton's head for lying about a BJ, then discovered to be fucking his secretary while being married to another? Oh, it was about the lie, not the BJ? OK< how's your boy Scooter Libby, the one who did the same thing as Clinton, lied to Congress and was pardoned from prison by the king dickhead? Can you understand now, Mike?

agreed - very much like the idiotic denial by the left when it happens (lalalalalalala - i can't hear you - lalalalalalala) 1) Clinton committed XYZ 2) Actions XYZ relegate Cinton to being scummy 3) Our party does the same things Clinton did, therefore our party is scummy. No, no, what I'm pointing out is that even if you decide to unilatterally drag the left in, not that I agree or disagree, you are admitting the right is scummy, juts trying to mitigate it by dragging the left in. If you wanted to deny and create evidence to that contention/defense, well, you would, but you prefer to look for company rather than to deny. I don't expect you to understand that simple reasoning, but instead insist that the right is "normal" because "everyone" does it.

It's really an idioic admission by the right. Righty says: 1) Clinton committed XYZ 2) Actions XYZ relegate Cinton to being scummy 3) Our party does the same things Clinton did, therefore our party is scummy. Kind of a sylogism, but the logic pattern is an acknowledgment that he right is scum, just that they think the lft is too.

But it IS about the hypocrisy! It is, quite frankly, hilarious to watch someone have to 'resign' (read, get fired) for doing something they so strongly and publicly condemn, which wouldn't even be an issue if people like them didn't spend so much time and effort constantly condemning it. It is perfect, perfect karma

Yea, one is a dress wearing fool and the other an entertainer.

don't we all? No. Bush is not stupid. He would not be where he is if that was the case. Has he made mistakes? Of course. The fact that he is a terrible public speaker makes him an easy target. Not being stupid does not often correlate having mental issues. In fact, most serial killers, most Hollywood stars, most homeless people are not stupid. But many of them have serious mental problems. Bush is a megalomaniac. He's the "Decider." No matter what Congress or the House are gonna do on issue XXX, he'll veto it or "find a way to get the votes." He's king of the world in his own mind, and seems to have zero concern over our relations with other nations. In a global economy and social structure, that's insane/insanity, IMO. Agree 100%. Intellect is not really the issue, it's about egocentric agenda regardless of what's right, good, fair, etc. He is the president of his contry, not the US. Now, let's examine tose who voted for him in 00 and then REALLY examine those who voted for him in 04; I think we might find some retardation

It is fun to watch the left go after people so as to try and discount the message. Happens with the gays, reliegion, morality ect ect ect. Nice to know it does not work Discount what message? It's more fun to watch the right justify their dirty acts and pathetic ideologies that have failed in every aspect, fiscally, morally, legislatively and then try to say the left does the same. Contemporary politics work best when studied conemporarily. You can bring up events from 100 years and make an argument for that day. but not for today. Enjoy your spot on the bench while we fix the country, again. Oh this is going to be fun to watch As in, you have no argument for that, you are waiting for the reinforcements to arrive? Bill's right, you have lost it.

It is fun to watch the left go after people so as to try and discount the message. Happens with the gays, reliegion, morality ect ect ect. Nice to know it does not work Discount what message? It's more fun to watch the right justify their dirty acts and pathetic ideologies that have failed in every aspect, fiscally, morally, legislatively and then try to say the left does the same. Contemporary politics work best when studied conemporarily. You can bring up events from 100 years and make an argument for that day. but not for today. Enjoy your spot on the bench while we fix the country, again.

>>>>>Of course - which is why the right wing hasn't bothered calling Al Gore a hypocrite. They know better than that. (Right?) Of course Hannity calls Gore a lear jet liberal, so does that mean the drove of pickle-smoking Reoub politicians are cock-sucking conservatives?

I don't think Bill is homophobic nor is he Republicanphobic (same thing).

Like someone, say, responsible for the death of another being against the death penalty? They're all the same and they're all covered in it. I'm sure there are plenty who have done worse than buggering a male prostitute in a bathroom, they're just better at keeping secrets. Hence the lowest approval rating for our elected officials ever. Some people just like to cheer when "their team" scores I guess. And that is an illustration of how bad hypocrisy is in government, NOT equating being gay to being a killer. Just for you sensitive types **YAWN** Come back in 20-30 years; you guys are done. Look at the brght side. when your party is disempowered you can sit on the sidelines and blame an we'll play your role and try to include you guys into our fucking up.

>>>And don't even THINK about the "hypocrite" argument. You should all know better than that. Who isn't in Washington? I love this, when your party is the lowest possibly ever, look to others to bring in. Trent, your party is flailing, come back in 20-30 years when the Dems fuck up as bad. You had your almosy 3 decades to fuck this country, now it's our turn; first we'll fix it, then we'll fuck it, just watch as we've had to for quite some time........ Nanny, nanny, boo-boo

Well it couldn't happen to a better group of people, as they tie in US troops deaths in Ira to the tollerance of gays, but it's not about freedom of speech even if that's the defense of the Bible-toting nuts. The US Const has a 1-way relationship between a person and the gov, meaning the gov owes these protections, not a civil entity. Odd thing is, virtually all military folks are more homophobic and generally conservative than the average American so their point holds no water. Before you celebrate too much, the institution is probably defiunct and thanks to your parties favor of, "a corporation is a person," the award will fall to to the ground unless it is against the people as well. If the judge awarded it against the people individually then it would stick, esp the punitive as you cannot BK from them.

As opposed to Adolf Hitler, who is idolized by others. Godwin's Law - mods, you can lock the thread, now... it's done. MIKE: Mods, help, I'm outta gas.....HELP *yawn* See my reply in your bullshit WWII thread for my thoughts. "If at first you don't succeed, change, change the question until you DO succeed" MIKE: I'm outta gas, help!!!!!