Right-wingers calling for impeachment!

[high fly]

Yes, friends, there it is in black and white for all the world to see, a number of prominent right-wingers are supporting impeachment proceedings.

Here we have Bruce Fein, who drew up articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton speaking out:http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040407J.shtml

Fein's article: http://slate.com/id/2169292/

Fein and John Nichols, the author of The Genius of Impeachment on Bill Moyers: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

and Mr. Paul Craig Roberts' article, "Impeach Now:" http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts07162007.html

Roberts says Bush committed felonies: http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts202.html

and finally, a poll showing nearly half of Americans favor impeaching Bush and most of them want to toss Cheney through the saloon's cafe doors into the horse trough out front: http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jul/06/poll_americans_evenly_divided_on_impeachment_of_bu sh_majority_for_targeting_cheney

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Pat Buchanan called for W's impeachment a while back, mainly for the border situation

[A.J.]

And they're just as dumb as the left-wingers calling for impeachment.

[spoon]

And they're just as dumb as the left-wingers calling for impeachment.

You are kidding right? Is there anyone out there still dumb enough to defend any of W's choices/fuck ups at this point?! Guess I've been proven wrong.

[A.J.]

No, I'm not kidding. I don't like the trend of calling for impeachment because a President is unpopular. We didn't impeach Harry Truman who left with the lowest approval rating of any President. We didn't impeach LBJ who bogged us down in Vietnam based on an alleged attack against a U.S. (The Gulf of Tonkin Incident)

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution stipulates:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

I don't know if Bush has done anything to merit impeachment based upon the above.

[spoon]

How about false intel and illegal wiretaps? How about the fact that he hired his personal lawyer for the Supreme court? How about the fact that many believe he manipulated (his people) two elections in two different states? How about the fact that Clinton was attacked for much less and I can name sooo many other failures that lead us to simply want someone else so we don't continue to fall in every area as a country for the image of his legacy?!

[A.J.]

How about false intel and illegal wiretaps?

FISA is illegal?

How about the fact that he hired his personal lawyer for the Supreme court?

JFK had nominated his brother to be Attorney General. He was confirmed as you know.

How about the fact that many believe he manipulated (his people) two elections in two different states?

Many people believe JFK's dad manipulated elections in West Virginia and Chicago. He wasn't impeached.

How about the fact that Clinton was attacked for much less and I can name sooo many other failures that lead us to simply want someone else so we don't continue to fall in every area as a country for the image of his legacy?!

Technically, the impeachment process against him was justified because he lied before a Grand Jury. I thought then (as I do know) that given the circumstances, such an offense did not merit removal from office.

Is Bush a fuck up? Sure. My point is simply that I just don't like to see impeachment being used as a recall tactic.

[Crispy123]

Is Bush a fuck up? Sure. My point is simply that I just don't like to see impeachment being used as a recall tactic.

Bush circumvented the FISA courts, thats why the wiretaps were illegal.

He has also shit on the Geneva convention. The entire time he has been in office from the fraud commited down here in Florida with the "hanging chad" to the US attorney fiasco, he has continuosly eroded the US constitution.

Impeachment isn't a recall tactic in this case. Impeachment is needed so that whoever occupies the Executive Branch of the US government gets the idea that the American people won't let them become our King and do away with the system of checks and balances that our founding fathers instituted.

[spoon]

Well said. Thanks CP.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

I haven't heard this right wingers opinion yet

http://www.kolumbus.fi/homepages/kurri9.JPG

[DolaMight]

And they're just as dumb as the left-wingers calling for impeachment.

Right on brother.

[Midkiff]

Right on brother.

And it's people like you two who are ensuring the absolutely inevitable doom of this country. Thanks for that.

[underdog]

And it's people like you two who are ensuring the absolutely inevitable doom of this country. Thanks for that.

I thought it was the people who continue to try to convince themselves that there's actually some sort of difference between the two parties that are ensuring the absolutely inevitable doom of this country.

[Crispy123]

Well said. Thanks CP.

Thanks Spoon. AJ feel free to make that his mod quote...:thumbup:

I thought it was the people who continue to try to convince themselves that there's actually some sort of difference between the two parties that are ensuring the absolutely inevitable doom of this country.

We must have a 2 party system plus, to ever have any hope of making it as a country. I think a lot of us would like to make that a reality and that is the hope we have to hang on to.

Its the people that think the polticians actually believe in their party or country and blindly vote on party lines, that will be the doom of this country.

[BeltOfScotch]

Without hard evidence that Bush had direct knowledge of, and was complicit in, deliberately falsifying intelligence in order to sell the Iraq war to us, I can't go along with the impeachment talk. Besides, from a logistical standpoint, in terms of timing and the fact that everyone who wants Bush gone would also want Cheney gone, it is absolutely impractical.

[DarkHippie]

I think that revealing the identity of a CIA agent is an action of Treason. I also think this is why they had libby take the fall for it before the investigation got too close to W.

That said, calling for impeachment is just a waste of time and resources and a cheap politcal maneuver. And does anyone really want a President Chaney?

[Bob Impact]

And it's people like you two who are ensuring the absolutely inevitable doom of this country. Thanks for that.

I gotta be honest, if I had to pick between Midkiff and AJ to run the country, I would go AJ.

[badmonkey]

I think that revealing the identity of a CIA agent is an action of Treason. I also think this is why they had libby take the fall for it before the investigation got too close to W.

That said, calling for impeachment is just a waste of time and resources and a cheap politcal maneuver. And does anyone really want a President Chaney?

Still waiting for Armitage to be charged with the leak.

Badmonkey

[underdog]

We must have a 2 party system plus, to ever have any hope of making it as a country. I think a lot of us would like to make that a reality and that is the hope we have to hang on to.

Its the people that think the polticians actually believe in their party or country and blindly vote on party lines, that will be the doom of this country.

The 2nd part was the point I was trying to make. Even though they called themselves Dems and Republicans, there's no real difference.

[keithy_19]

Of course Bush should be impeached. I mean, he was the one who wanted to exterminate the entire Jewish population of the world. That was him right?

[high fly]

No, I'm not kidding. I don't like the trend of calling for impeachment because a President is unpopular. We didn't impeach Harry Truman who left with the lowest approval rating of any President. We didn't impeach LBJ who bogged us down in Vietnam based on an alleged attack against a U.S. (The Gulf of Tonkin Incident)

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution stipulates:



I don't know if Bush has done anything to merit impeachment based upon the above.

That was what the links were for.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts202.html
Under an order signed by Bush in 2002, NSA illegally spied on Americans without warrants.

By spying on Americans without obtaining warrants, Bush committed felonies under FISA. Moreover, there is strong, indeed overwhelming, evidence that justice was obstructed when Bush and Gonzales blocked a 2006 Justice Department investigation into whether Gonzales acted properly as Attorney General in approving and overseeing the Bush administration’s program of spying on US citizens. Also at issue is whether Gonzales acted properly in advising Bush to kill an investigation of Gonzales’ professional actions with regard to the NSA spy program.

We are faced with the almost certain fact that the two highest law enforcement officials of the United States are criminals.



and:
http://slate.com/id/2169292/
The most recent invention we know of is the vice president's insistence that an executive order governing the handling of classified information in the executive branch does not reach his office because he also serves as president of the Senate. In other words, the vice president is a unique legislative-executive creature standing above and beyond the Constitution. The House judiciary committee should commence an impeachment inquiry. As Alexander Hamilton advised in the Federalist Papers, an impeachable offense is a political crime against the nation. Cheney's multiple crimes against the Constitution clearly qualify.

[LiddyRules]

I say we impeach or attempt to impeach a third president in a row (after Bush) we just scrap the Constitution and figure out a new system of government.

[FUNKMAN]

eliminate campaign contributions and tv stations have to air debates and commercials for free with each candidate getting equal air-time. and 'smear campaigning' has to be eliminated. candidates can only speak of how THEY will work to benefit the people with clear plans instead of spending millions of dollars to go on national tv and act like 6 year old bratty fucking kids

i fucking hate it, i hate it, i hate it!

[CofyCrakCocaine]

Here's the problem with impeachment. Aught zillion years ago there was this tiny little conflict between Athens and Sparta called the Peloponnesian Wars. Lasted 40 or more years. Democratic Athens lost to Sparta in the end, and Democracy was erased from the history books for nearly 2,500 years. Alot of factors played a role in weakening Athens at this time and setting it up for utter devastation.

One of those factors was the ability to vote out of power any general or leader that was no longer popular. Though of course in their time, "voting out of power" meant people would vote and if you were um... "impeached"... you were typically hung or at least cast into exile. As was the case with skilled Athenian admirals who were sentenced to the gallows by an angry public because after doing a wonderful job with their navy, there was a storm, some men fell overboard, and they drowned. Athens lost some vital leadership in this way, and the next guy who took over for the fleet proceeded to sink the whole entire navy in some cock-brained campaign in Sicily. Athens was soon over-run by the Spartans, and Greece never recovered.

While I hate Bush and would love to see him impeached... there needs to be true downright evidential proof that he did something to *legally* merit impeachment. Which I'm sure he's done...but do we have the proof beyond opinion and likelihood? Just impeaching someone because he's unpopular is setting a dangerous precedent that people will start using far too often.

Of course, Impeachments don't really mean anything, as they aren't really enforced. But the talk of impeachment on the blind ass basis of simple bias and opinion is not substantial to garner my support... and makes me worry about the stability of our country.

[high fly]

Quote:
Originally Posted by spoon
How about false intel and illegal wiretaps?

FISA is illegal?


Quote:
Originally Posted by spoon
How about the fact that he hired his personal lawyer for the Supreme court?

JFK had nominated his brother to be Attorney General. He was confirmed as you know.


Quote:
Originally Posted by spoon
How about the fact that many believe he manipulated (his people) two elections in two different states?

Many people believe JFK's dad manipulated elections in West Virginia and Chicago. He wasn't impeached.



AJ, it's too bad you weren't around my house when I was a little kid.
You would have learned the lesson that all of us learned at an early age. That lesson, stated simply was,

JUST BECAUSE LITTLE JOHNNY DOWN THE STREET JUMPS OFF THE ROOF, IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO JUMP OFF THE ROOF, TOO!


Then you wouldn't make arguments like this one.

[A.J.]

Right on brother.

And it's people like you two who are ensuring the absolutely inevitable doom of this country. Thanks for that.


100% Muscle is from Canada so of course he wants this country destroyed.

If this country can survive Lincoln suspending habeus corpus during the Civil War (or "War Between the States" -- for El Mudo), FDR trying to pack the Supreme Court, the Imperial Presidencies of LBJ and Nixon, and the malaise of Jimmy Carter, it will survive George W. Bush.

[Yerdaddy]

100% Muscle is from Canada so of course he wants this country destroyed.

If this country can survive Lincoln suspending habeus corpus during the Civil War (or "War Between the States" -- for El Mudo), FDR trying to pack the Supreme Court, the Imperial Presidencies of LBJ and Nixon, and the malaise of Jimmy Carter, it will survive George W. Bush.

You talking about "The War of Lincoln's Aggression"?

I'm more worried about the way our laws that govern the government being deliberately, (and with a reasonable logic), set up ambiguously to allow the executive freedom to violate the principles of established laws without fear of prosecution as a means of dealing with some unforseen crisis, and this ambiguity being blatantly exploited for the political gain of an administration and political party without anything more than a low grumble from the people who put them there. It amounts to approval of this conduct and an invitation to continue the trend or accelerate it. I think this assumption that "We can't do worse than Bush" is absurd. Low approval ratings in non-election years aside, he's been given a green light to violate the Constitution and traditional political taboos by half the country. He's carried out major elements of his agenda and therefore he's a winner. We're in for more of the same. I have no doubts about that.

[A.J.]

I understand your point (and those of others) and I'm not being flippant about this. Then again, I don't see it as bad as some make it out to be.

Besides, the nation just elected a Democratic majority in Congress to fix these things and to reestablish Legislative Control! Everything's gonna be great!

[Yerdaddy]

I understand your point (and those of others) and I'm not being flippant about this. Then again, I don't see it as bad as some make it out to be.

Besides, the nation just elected a Democratic majority in Congress to fix these things and to reestablish Legislative Control! Everything's gonna be great!

That's the other half of the equation that scares me - who are saviors are!

That was a joke. I actually have plenty of faith in the Democrats' leadership, but I think their political professionalism and electioneering skills will guarantee their time in control of even one branch of government will be short. But that's also a reflection of what a buch of extremists we've become. Half of the Democrats' problem is that they're instinctively moderate and that doesn't appeal to enough Americans anymore to win elections.

Again, the scariest thing about America as I see it is the people. Changing governments is easy compared to changing a culture.

[high fly]

Without hard evidence that Bush had direct knowledge of, and was complicit in, deliberately falsifying intelligence in order to sell the Iraq war to us, I can't go along with the impeachment talk. Besides, from a logistical standpoint, in terms of timing and the fact that everyone who wants Bush gone would also want Cheney gone, it is absolutely impractical.


With those parameters, there is a lot to work with.
One example is the allegation of Iraq purchasing uranium from the "N-country." It was in Bush's Oct. 7, 2002 speech and removed after Tenet and others at the CIA strenuously objected. The Bush administration, hell-bent on making that "reconstituted nuke program" allegation, then went with the bogus story about the aluminum tubes to make the case. When that one was shot full of holes, they went back to the uranium purchase story and put it in Bush's Jan. 2003 State of the Union speech. Before the speech, Tenet and others at the CIA called and emailed Bush's chief speechwriter Michael Gerson, national security advisor Condoleezza Rice, her deputy Stephen Hadley and others, telling them to remove it from the speech, that it was a phony story.
Not only did they insist on keeping the bogus story in the speech, but Bush himself insisted for the next several months that the CIA had cleared that part of the speech.

Another example is the alleged connection with Saddam and al Qaeda. Bush said, on Sept. 25, 2002 "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam," even though CIA reports had been telling him the opposite for months. In his May 1, 2003 "Mission accomplished" speech, Bush said "We have removed an ally of al Qaeda." Cheney said Iraq was the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11"
Here are links to show what the intel was telling them:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/10/iraq.intel/index.html
"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support," it said.


The report
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

and another story that shows they were lying
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/10/iraq.intel/index.html


There is plenty more, from the big fat lie about Saddam's brother-in-law defecting and telling us in truth that the nuke program had been shut down since 1990 (Bush told us he said the opposite) to the UAVs that our Air Force UAV experts said were not designed for and could not carry chem/bio spraying equipment, to the aluminum tubes "only suited for centrifuges" that we tested at Oak Ridge where they fell apart in a centrifuge to the 45 minute launch window the intel denied and so on and so on.

[MrPink]

If Bush is impeached, Cheney becomes pres...

[high fly]

If this country can survive Lincoln suspending habeus corpus during the Civil War (or "War Between the States" -- for El Mudo), FDR trying to pack the Supreme Court, the Imperial Presidencies of LBJ and Nixon, and the malaise of Jimmy Carter, it will survive George W. Bush.



JUST BECAUSE LITTLE JOHNNY DOWN THE STREET JUMPS OFF THE ROOF, IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO JUMP OFF THE ROOF, TOO!

I swear, these right-wingers just sit there glassy-eyed like Terry Schiavo watching a balloon, when evidence of gross violation of the Constitution takes place.
Here we have a president whose blatant lies get over 3,600 Americans killed, 25,000 maimed and/or suffer the loss of eyesight, limbs, internal organs, flushes $500 billion and gets legal "opinions" from his personal lawyer that he can violate any law he wants to, make any person disappear he wants to, and eliminate any oversight or governmental checks and balances he wants to.

Then, when it's time to select Supreme Court judges, they snap out of their zombie-like state long enough to demand we have strict Constitutionalists on the bench, because following the Constitution is so important, don't you know.

[A.J.]

Can you change my diaper for me? Thanks.

[spoon]

Here's the problem with impeachment. Aught zillion years ago there was this tiny little conflict between Athens and Sparta called the Peloponnesian Wars. Lasted 40 or more years. Democratic Athens lost to Sparta in the end, and Democracy was erased from the history books for nearly 2,500 years. Alot of factors played a role in weakening Athens at this time and setting it up for utter devastation.

One of those factors was the ability to vote out of power any general or leader that was no longer popular. Though of course in their time, "voting out of power" meant people would vote and if you were um... "impeached"... you were typically hung or at least cast into exile. As was the case with skilled Athenian admirals who were sentenced to the gallows by an angry public because after doing a wonderful job with their navy, there was a storm, some men fell overboard, and they drowned. Athens lost some vital leadership in this way, and the next guy who took over for the fleet proceeded to sink the whole entire navy in some cock-brained campaign in Sicily. Athens was soon over-run by the Spartans, and Greece never recovered.

While I hate Bush and would love to see him impeached... there needs to be true downright evidential proof that he did something to *legally* merit impeachment. Which I'm sure he's done...but do we have the proof beyond opinion and likelihood? Just impeaching someone because he's unpopular is setting a dangerous precedent that people will start using far too often.

Of course, Impeachments don't really mean anything, as they aren't really enforced. But the talk of impeachment on the blind ass basis of simple bias and opinion is not substantial to garner my support... and makes me worry about the stability of our country.


Well in reality, who do you believe started this bullshit!? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the dukes, it wasn't the dukes. (Trading Places line) And siege warfare, disease/famine took out Athens from what I recall. I'm sure plenty more played into it, but I don't recall this story at all.

[scottinnj]

And it's people like you two who are ensuring the absolutely inevitable doom of this country. Thanks for that.

Funny, we right wingers used to get all worked up and say the same thing when Bill Clinton was President. Country made it through that disaster though.

[scottinnj]

Bottom line, its a waste of time. Even IF you got the House to impeach President Bush, you STILL have to have the Senate to convict the President on the charges drawn up in the Articles of Impeachment.


So let's say ALL of that happens, and Bush does his Nixon impersonation getting into Marine One to head to Crawford Texas:


IT MEANS YOU DUMMIES PUT CHENEY IN CHARGE!


http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o217/themarshal/DickCheney.jpg

REMEMBER HIM? HE SHOT someone and got away with it! Just keep the boat from tipping and start from scratch in January 2009 PLEASE!!!

[epo]

As a liberal, I see the impeachment option as politically not advantageous.

If we pursue an impeachment, the Democrats will be spending all of their time chasing a lame duck president...to the dismay of the populus. Harry Reid & Nancy Pelosi's time is much better spent sending politically popular bills to the executive wing for W's veto pen.

Minimum Wage Increase? Veto.
Raising Emission Standards? Veto.
Education Funding Increase? Veto.
Increase Incentives for Energy Independence? Veto.

You can frame the entire Republican party as being anti-American with some great votes...and not face the ire of the populus for another impeachment. Then you frame the next executive candidate as Romney = Bush, or Thompson = Bush and you've achieved your goal.

Plus if you still need the goal of fucking Bush up historically....you censure him & Cheney as Senator Russ Feingold suggests. Link to story here. (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_070723.htm)

[BeltOfScotch]

As a liberal, I see the impeachment option as politically not advantageous.

Plus, from a political perspective, Democrats want Bush there being the ass that everyone hates as the election comes. It's much easier to remind the voters that another Republican just means more of the same when the same is still around.

[epo]

Plus, from a political perspective, Democrats want Bush there being the ass that everyone hates as the election comes. It's much easier to remind the voters that another Republican just means more of the same when the same is still around.

As much as I don't like the guy, you are absolutely correct. Every candidate the Republicans have has sucked enough Bush "throne" to draw the parallel for the next election. Censure the prick and move on.

[foodcourtdruide]

Funny, we right wingers used to get all worked up and say the same thing when Bill Clinton was President. Country made it through that disaster though.

Do you really think Clinton's time in office was a disaster? I mean, I understand you're right wing and don't like Clinton, but could you honestly say Clinton had a bad run in the White House? Especially compared to W.

[scottinnj]

Do you really think Clinton's time in office was a disaster? I mean, I understand you're right wing and don't like Clinton, but could you honestly say Clinton had a bad run in the White House? Especially compared to W.


Not all of it. Just making general sweeping statements again. Thanks for putting me back in check.

Edit: the point I was trying to make was that in the 90s, Clinton was portrayed as Satan himself, and that EVERYTHING he did was wrong, and yadda yadda yadda...the same crap Randy Rhoades spews out about Bush on AA, just Limbaugh doing it about Clinton back then. I guess what I was going for is that we will survive all this, and had we conservatives known how far off track he would go from conservatism, especially in the second term, we wouldn't have voted for him, and let Kerry win. I was just addressing MidKiff's "inevitable doom" post with a bit of perspective on how it felt when you guys were in charge and we were denied a place at the table.

Poor comparison to Bush though I agree. But we are not "DOOMED"

[sailor]

Bush circumvented the FISA courts, thats why the wiretaps were illegal.



doesn't matter, if they don't pay their phone bills (http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSEIC07119120080110?feedType=RSS&feedName=oddlyEnoughNews).

[Snacks]

Funny, we right wingers used to get all worked up and say the same thing when Bill Clinton was President. Country made it through that disaster though.

I will take a president like Clinton who lies about a personal sexual situation and did a pretty good job running OUR COUNTRY over a president who has lied and made mistake after mistake costing lives and money.

But Im a liberal who thinks gays should be allowed to marry, the war was a mistake, tax the rich a little more to help the less fortunate and people should do as they want as long as it doesnt effect anyone else's personal lives. But hey thats just me!

[A.J.]

I will take a president like Clinton who lies about a personal sexual situation and did a pretty good job running OUR COUNTRY over a president who has lied and made mistake after mistake costing lives and money.

But Im a liberal who thinks gays should be allowed to marry, the war was a mistake, tax the rich a little more to help the less fortunate and people should do as they want as long as it doesnt effect anyone else's personal lives. But hey thats just me!

Taxing the rich more to help the less fortunate is affecting their personal lives, is it not?

[Snacks]

Taxing the rich more to help the less fortunate is affecting their personal lives, is it not?

technically you are correct but its for the good of the country. Typical right winger picks the one thing they can argue about rather then whats the point of the argument. Which is Clinton's mistakes or Bush's? What type of person would you rather have? A guy who lies about a blow job and hurts no one but his wife or a guy who lies about everything and those lies have killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of others?

[TheMojoPin]

Typical right winger

Easy there.

AJ is one of the most levelheaded posters here, and he posted nothing that deserved that kind of response. If you don't show a little courtesy, how can you expect some in return?

[Yerdaddy]

Easy there.

AJ is one of the most levelheaded posters here, and he posted nothing that deserved that kind of response. If you don't show a little courtesy, how can you expect some in return?

Not so fast.

I posted this:

You talking about "The War of Lincoln's Aggression"?

I'm more worried about the way our laws that govern the government being deliberately, (and with a reasonable logic), set up ambiguously to allow the executive freedom to violate the principles of established laws without fear of prosecution as a means of dealing with some unforseen crisis, and this ambiguity being blatantly exploited for the political gain of an administration and political party without anything more than a low grumble from the people who put them there. It amounts to approval of this conduct and an invitation to continue the trend or accelerate it. I think this assumption that "We can't do worse than Bush" is absurd. Low approval ratings in non-election years aside, he's been given a green light to violate the Constitution and traditional political taboos by half the country. He's carried out major elements of his agenda and therefore he's a winner. We're in for more of the same. I have no doubts about that.

There's more words in that first sentence than in all of your 300,000 posts! And he said this:

I understand your point (and those of others) and I'm not being flippant about this. Then again, I don't see it as bad as some make it out to be.

Besides, the nation just elected a Democratic majority in Congress to fix these things and to reestablish Legislative Control! Everything's gonna be great!

I don't even understand my point and I wrote the damn thing! I don't want to hurt the guy's career as a board moderator or 80's comedy and Simpson's referencer, but it's time somebody finally set the record straight about this so-called level-headed poster... I think AJ might be drinking. And I think he's been guilty of sarcasm on more than one occasion. There. I said it. Let the chips fall where they may.

[TheMojoPin]

He's unflappable even when filled to the brim with gin.

[keithy_19]

If possible, can we replace Bush with a golden retriever?

I'm voting for McCain if he gets the nomination(which I hope he does). But that's just me and my opinions are usually dimwitted remarks.

[A.J.]

But Im a liberal who thinks gays should be allowed to marry, the war was a mistake, tax the rich a little more to help the less fortunate and people should do as they want as long as it doesnt effect anyone else's personal lives. But hey thats just me!

Taxing the rich more to help the less fortunate is affecting their personal lives, is it not?

technically you are correct but its for the good of the country. Typical right winger picks the one thing they can argue about rather then whats the point of the argument. Which is Clinton's mistakes or Bush's? What type of person would you rather have? A guy who lies about a blow job and hurts no one but his wife or a guy who lies about everything and those lies have killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of others?

Well, that was simply the point I wanted to argue. Why should the rich be taxed more to pay for the irresponsibility and incompetence of others?

But I think we need a President who brags about a blow job. It's simply the right thing to do -- as a guy.

[A.J.]

.. I think AJ might be drinking. And I think he's been guilty of sarcasm on more than one occasion. There. I said it. Let the chips fall where they may.

I'm a repeat offender -- on both counts.

[Grendel_Kahn]

Throwing a deck chair off the Titanic.

[topless_mike]

who cares if the wire taps are illegal.
im not doing anything wrong. they can listen in all they want.

hey- i dont care what they have to do, as long as they keep us safe.

[topless_mike]

But Im a liberal who thinks gays should be allowed to marry
i have no problem with this. love is love. who cares if the equipment doesnt fit.

the war was a mistake not necessarily. i would rather the fighting go on over there than over here. remember, everybody was presented with the same intel and voted to go to war based on that intel (even hillary, who flip flopped and denied it- they have her on senate floor tape voting for war). whether that intel was 100% confirmed is a different story. this could have been the result of left over hysteria from 9/11. they were presented with some evidence and jumped the shark without totally looking into it.

tax the rich a little more to help the less fortunate and people should do as they want as long as it doesnt effect anyone else's personal lives. But hey thats just me! why tax the rich? taxing the rich only defeats the whole purpose of doing more with your life. would you like it if they took half of your paycheck just because you were rich? i dont think so.

[AKA]

who cares if the wire taps are illegal.
im not doing anything wrong. they can listen in all they want.

hey- i dont care what they have to do, as long as they keep us safe.

http://www.williamandnadia.com/media/photos/scaredkitty_large.jpg

Seriously...I never understand that line of thinking that giving away our freedom makes us safer because they tell us so. Even if you love this President, odds are you may not love one of the ones that follows - and what then? The supporters who just sold out the constitution because of willful ignorance will find a tough time getting it back.

[Grendel_Kahn]

i have no problem with this. love is love. who cares if the equipment doesnt fit.

not necessarily. i would rather the fighting go on over there than over here. remember, everybody was presented with the same intel and voted to go to war based on that intel (even hillary, who flip flopped and denied it- they have her on senate floor tape voting for war). whether that intel was 100% confirmed is a different story..


Lord knows I'm no Hillary backer. But to be fair to her and to the argument, at no time was Congress ever presented with the option of war. What they voted on was a resolution to give the president authorization to expand the powers of the office ( which may include the drafting of articles of war). It was really a moral booster because EVERY president has that authority inherent to the office. Congress has not declared war since 1941. So while she will not be getting MY vote, she did not vote for the war nor did she then "ahem" flip flop.


And seriously, fuck you for using the term. Every person who changes their mind is going to be accused of the dreaded "flip flop"?

[Yerdaddy]

not necessarily. i would rather the fighting go on over there than over here. remember, everybody was presented with the same intel and voted to go to war based on that intel (even hillary, who flip flopped and denied it- they have her on senate floor tape voting for war). whether that intel was 100% confirmed is a different story. this could have been the result of left over hysteria from 9/11. they were presented with some evidence and jumped the shark without totally looking into it.

1. Wasn't that Bin Laden's rationale for attacking us on our soil?

2. What was wrong with fighting them in Afghanistan instead of making new ones to fight in Iraq and adding the possibility of losing Iraq and creating a new terrorist training camp and base of operation with many times more space, weapons and moral justifications to hate us and with a better location to pull more of al-Qaeda's target region - the Muslim world - into the fighting?

Honestly, that "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" is the most Hitleresque rationale for war since Hitler. I'd like to thank you and people like you for making it a viable rationale for America to be more like Nazi Germany without the sweet leather fashion.

[A.J.]

I'd like to thank you and people like you for making it a viable rationale for America to be more like Nazi Germany without the sweet leather fashion.

Maybe it will be come Springtime.

http://www.ladyofthecake.com/mel/prod/images/spngtim4.jpg

[high fly]

Right-wingers never fail to try to change the subject, instead of addressing it head on, do they?

It's either play shoot-the-messenger, whine "B-b-b-b-but Clinton," or change the subject....