The segments are:
Jane reports on the two conventions’ different vibes (04:56)
How America’s obsession with image helps Palin (06:49)
Can pro-life Palin win over Hillary’s voters? (07:14)
Ann accuses liberals of anti-feminist attacks on Palin (05:29)
Jane vs. Ann on prosecuting Bush (11:42)
So who’s gonna win this thing? (04:55)
"Jane vs. Ann on prosecuting Bush" is the hottest part.
I'm especially interested in your comments on that.
They titled this one "Palin Fire," for those think there hasn't been enough wordplay using the Palin name and allusions to Nabokov.
পোস্টগুলি
৪২৬টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 426 এর 201 – থেকে 400 আরও নতুন» সবচেয়ে নতুন»Michael -
You said:
I think most Americans truly want a change of direction, and most certainly a change in tone.
Calling those who disagree un-American or unpatriotic is a losing proposition.
What is this responding to? Integrity is on your side. If what you say is true, then by logic they will punish your side for people like Integrity.
Hoosier, I'll give you one more shot at understanding this:
As of November 7, 2006, the U.S. House of the 109th Congress:
229 Republicans
201 Democrats
1 Independent
Michael, your argument boils down to a fishing expedition, then.
"I'm sure something is wrong, but I have no evidence. So, let's go find the evidence."
Did you find the part of the Constitution that says it's imperative yet? You did allege that, you know. Please don't back down.
Bloggingheads @ 18:43
Wow, Hamsher looks stunned grasping Ann's exquisite point about Hillary's Message. You can read the "transfer" convention speech many ways, but Ann says if it's about strong, successful women, then Palin is her natural successor. People will be attracted to her because of that, not just because of the historic nature of the pick.
For people like Hamsher, that is a no-go, and you can feel it. It's not that Hillary is a woman, it's that she's a Liberal woman.
Similary, if Michael Steele or another black person ever becomes a strong candidate for President, black Americans who are Democrats will not vote for him on the principle that he's just black.
"You think "Prosecutorial Discretion" is the same as "looking into potential wrongdoing" or "investigating" is the same thing?"
Well Michael, yes. Is it wise or in the county's interest to commence an investigation into these matters?
You seem to be naively assumeing that this investigation will be simply a disinterested, "just the facts maam" enterprise. Can you seriously imagine the possibility that such an investigation can be commenced and pursued at great time and cost and that no one is prosuecuted? If you don't get Bush or Cheney, then some underling will have their career destroyed. The near certain end (scalps, scalps, scalps) is inevitable once the investigation is begun. I suspect Hamsher and her ilk know this, even if you don't.
sofa,
I was not responding directly to integrity's comment, I read his entire screed about Ann. (And I'll say this: her constant brushing away of the hair, looking down, bouncing around,and taking sips of whatever was distracting to say the least.)
I'm referring to the overall "tone" of the right wing's message that if you're not with us, you're against us.
You understand exactly what I was saying.
The GOP went after Clinton (stupidly IMO) for lying about a blow job and hardly suffered from it politically considering they didn’t lose their majority until 2006.
It rallied Demcorats to Clinton's defense. It is easy to forget it now, but the extreme left of the Democratic Party -- the Obama types -- really disliked Clinton. He signed Don't Ask Don't Tell, the DOMA, and welfare reform. If Bush was impeached, his approval ratings would go up.
"Calling those who disagree un-American or unpatriotic is a losing proposition."
And trying to throw people who disagree with you in jail and refighting the arguments of 2003 is a winning one?
BTW,
Natural Born Killers was directed by Oliver Stone, not Tarintino. Even Tarintino wouldn't ever make such a borning benile piece of crap like that.
mjsharon,
I would assume any such investigation would be just as much a "disinterested, just the facts maam enterprise" as the one undertaken by the Republicans via Ken Starr, that lasted about 6 years, cost about 70 million dollars and resulted in an embarrassment to the entire nation...and yes, I blame Clinton for not telling the truth.
Can I also assume you were right there, cheering on Mr. Starr?
Tell the truth now...God is watching.
Michael said:
I think most Americans are no longer buying into the "you're either with us or against us" line Bush and company have been throwing out for years on end.
And I don't think any sane Americans ever bought into the "you're either with us or we'll prosecute and jail you for your crime of being politically/ideologically disagreeable to us" line that Hamsher et al have been pounding on for the last 8 years.
Deal with it!
Bloggingheads
Joe Biden's problem is that he's almost 30 years removed from his enormous personal sacrifice in raising his kids.
If his wife had cruelly been taken from him more recently, say 8 years ago, the story would've resonated much more.
That's the whole thing with Palin. Whereas Biden it's all past, Palin it's all present.
She is living the reality he only embodies.
People are captivated how she can juggle everything, husband, kids, Down Syndrome baby, governance for all these years, and very successfully too.
Michael is Luckyoldson.
Same tactics, just more polite.
john,
Once again; I have no idea if investigating would lead to crimes, but our Constitution does call for such...do you agree?
Whether it creates turmoil, etc...sure, of course it will, but are one of those who ranted and raved about how silly the Clinton investigations were? Or are you saying that, even if there were crimes committed, we should just "move on?"
I doubt it.
And I never said anything about Tarintino directing Natural Born Killers, you have me confused with someone else. (Oh, and I know this will rankle many, but I liked the film, it was bizarre, violent and interesting from a film making point of view. All art is "subjective.")
Michael,
Yes, the Starr investigation had the same problems. Proves my point, doesn't it?
Michael, was Ken Starr doing his work under the Clinton administration or not? Is that a hard question to answer?
What you are proposing is hiring someone to go after a previous administration.
You do see the difference, do you not? I know you might be busy looking for that part of the Constitution that says it's "imperative" to go after previous administrations.
Is it me, or did everyone miss the most important aspect of the converstaion here; a lay person arguing the law with a lawyer/law professor. This demonstrates the lack of intelligence of the far left.
Ann kept giving her more and more rope to hang herself while at the same time raising the height of the gallows. A remarkable feat.
medaura,
Your argument ("you're either with us or we'll prosecute and jail you for your crime of being politically/ideologically disagreeable to us") makes absolutely no sense.
I've never heard such an argument, especially for 8 years, and it makes little sense in the context of today's discussion.
Bissage: ???
"Once again; I have no idea if investigating would lead to crimes, but our Constitution does call for such...do you agree?"
No. There is nothing in the Constitution or the common law that requires the investigation of crimes. Further, we have never done it at any time in the history.
All trolls' tactics resemble each other, Trooper. We got a lot of new people due to the Conventions. I think it's a different one.
Peter V. Bella said..."Is it me, or did everyone miss the most important aspect of the converstaion here; a lay person arguing the law with a lawyer/law professor."
It's just YOU and a few others here.
She was most certainly NOT arguing the "law," in fact she deferred to Ann on a number of occasions, saying Ann "knows much more than I do about this."
Her basic point was not purely about "law," but about whether we should at least "investigate" whether or not "laws" were broken.
Ann's point of view never centered on any "law," only her concerns that such an investigation would be a form of "pissing away" valuable time spent doing other things. (Which is a valid point, but a politically motivated one.)
When Jane asked her whether the Constitution contained remedies for such possibly prosecutions, Ann basically ignored her or was caught flat-footed at best.
Medaura, Miller, et al.
The idea that we just want prosecutions of people whom we disagree with, just because we disagree with them is utterly stupid and dishonest. Such prosecutions wouldn't do any good at all (i.e. would only inconvenience rather than really punish their targets) unless there were actual crimes with legitimate evidence.
If they haven't committed any crimes, they shouldn't fear investigation or trial.
vbspurs,
Are you implying I'm some kind of "troll" because I have a point of view differing from many here?
Is that your point?
That opposing views are not welcome?
*I don't think I've been overly abusive to anyone.
Bloggingheads
Hamsher almost plotzed when Ann suggested Biden might step down.
(BTW, due to the timing of the recording, I think that's the first time someone said it, not a post-Rush Limbaugh suggestion of last night)
The topsy-turvy quality of this choice for Liberals is delicious to see.
LOL! Hamsher is connoting Palin to Bush based on "abuse of power"???
OVERREACH. Jesus Christ.
Oh here comes the spiked heartrate.
So have you given up your line that the Constitution makes it "imperative" to investigate a previous administration for crimes.
Now it's just simple "we don't know if anything went wrong, but we'd like to work around."
One thing's for sure: that's real change from any previous administration.
Nice, that.
LOL! Hamsher is connoting Palin to Bush based on "abuse of power"???
OVERREACH. Jesus Christ.
Well she did fire employees under her just for being insufficiently "supportive."
That's the whole point of this discussion: Whether an "investigation" would lead to or not lead to...whether "laws were or were not broken."
That is called a fishing expedition or witch hunt. They have been doing that for a long time now and have gotten nowhere.
In a proper investigation one takes the facts and determines if there is evidence of a statute being broken; a crime committed.
One does not take opinion, fabricate facts and call it a crime. That is illegal and punishable. It is called a civil rights violation. Something the Democrats have a lot of experience in.
doyle says: "If they haven't committed any crimes, they shouldn't fear investigation or trial."
Funny, but that's almost exactly what the Bush administration has been saying about wiretapping, profiling and other forms of invasive security measures for years on end.
If you haven't done anything wrong...what are you worried about?
Right?
*I don't think I've been overly abusive to anyone.
Nono, I was defending you, albeit awkwardly.
If you haven't done anything wrong...what are you worried about?
But Congress wouldn't have to spy illegally. They have subpoena power.
Brent - I was going to mention that Judith Warner piece as well. It's an astonishing piece of mysogynist projection, in which Warner happily slimes a female candidate by asserting, without any factual basis, republican perfidy.
Apparently, nothing is too vile to voice if you just claim that you are reading Republicans minds.
Explaining that middle americans are idiots? Absolutely.
Mocking a person's accent -- including writing in dialect? That's in there too.
What is oddest about Warner's attack of the Heathers is the way she blames Palin for the attacks on Palin (including her own).
Apparently, if a certain feminist New York Times columnist finds Palin unimpressive (how surprising) then something is missing.
Apparently if her presence inspires national commentary on breast-pumping and babysitting the culprit is the woman.
Warner forgets who she works for. If she wants the media to write serious, factual articles about Palin, she could start by sending an intra-office memo.
work around == look around
in previous comment.
And as I've said earlier, the express "well, they did it too" doesn't really wash.
Show that it's right outside what others have done before.
Hahahaha, it's the Jane Hampster Show! Damn, I'm glad I spent the 10 min reading the comments instead of listening to her. How about that look on her face? Drinking with Joe Biden, I bet. Sarah Palin has been driving lots of Dems to the bar.
The University if Spoiled Children. Hahahaha.
peter says: "That is called a fishing expedition or witch hunt. They have been doing that for a long time now and have gotten nowhere."
What the hell are you talking about?
Until there is an actual investigation, we know absolutely nothing.
Asking people to testify and having any such questioning sheltered by the White House via Executive Privilege, etc. isn't merely a "fishing expedition," it's called the initial stages of an "investigation," that may or may not lead to prosecution.
You still haven't pointed to the part in the Constitution that says it's "imperative" to go after previous administrations.
Blogginghead Episode: 60 minutes
Effect from looking at Jane Hamsher's sofa colours: 2 Rolaids
Watching a hard-core Liberal listen to someone with a brain saying she's not on board with the whole Impeachment thing: Priceless
Assume Pres. Bush lied us into war: what criminal charge does one bring against him? Can a Commander in Chief, if he believes he is pursuing policies in the national interest, be accused of murder?
Consider, because Jane Hamsher does not: a war for oil is arguably in the national interest of the United States. Cheaper oil saves lives and promotes health in an uncountable multitude of ways. Cheaper oil promotes life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness
...and, second, it would distract (possibly consume) the Obama administration from what it should be doing. I don't see how anyone can sensibly disagree.
I listened to Obama's speech about what he thinks his administration should be doing. If show trials would distract him from that, it would be a small price to pay.
That is called a fishing expedition or witch hunt. They have been doing that for a long time now and have gotten nowhere.
Touchy Touchy.
Relax, I'm sure Bush and Cheney haven't broken any laws. Again, why is everybody so worried about this all of a sudden?
The time to go after Bush and Cheney is now, when they are in office. That's what the Constitution provides.
Going after a previous administration is not something the Constitution says is "imperative" (and, in fact, it does not mention).
If the Democrat Party can't get the gumption to go after Bush and Cheney NOW when they control Congress, then why are they waiting? Why do you think they'll have the gumption when Obama's in office?
Again, why is everybody so worried about this all of a sudden?
We're not worried of a sudden. We're discussing this as part of a Bloggingheads episode where it was featured.
McCain Campaign Plans To Keep Palin Away From The Press
Gee, what are they afraid of? Some tough bunch... Running and hiding. Refusing to talk without a script.
This is freakin' hilarious. Turns out that Mansion behind McSame wasn't one of his. Ha-ha!! What incompetence!
And they want to run the country??
Anchorage Daily News knows Palin well:
Palin's stall
Governor is stonewalling the Troopergate investigation
In July, when legislators started talking about conducting an investigation, Palin denied any wrongdoing and said she welcomed an investigation.
"Hold me accountable," she said.
Another profile in courage.
Palin is still governor of Alaska. Maybe she has some stuff to do? Maybe she wants to have some time with her family before she starts the campaign?
I dunno, Bambi stayed away from the press for his vacation. Was he hiding, too?
It's got to be humiliating to be a Republican these days.
Jane Hamsher is a babe.
Palin is on vacation? Really? Is that your final answer?
Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem.
"Spend some time with her family while she's doing work as the governor of Alaska" != "on vacation"
But you knew that.
Relax, I'm sure Bush and Cheney haven't broken any laws. Again, why is everybody so worried about this all of a sudden?
We're "touchy" because you are talking about - and taking an amazingly cavalier attitude to -things that could fundamentally and irrevocably alter the structure of the U.S. government. Ok?
Michael,
I suppose you are an expert in the investigative process and criminal procedure; you have studied investigative techniques, laws, criminal procedure and you have put that in practice? You have studied and applied the rules of evidence?
Or are you an expert in spouting your personal political opinions?
miller: working is not vacation.
ADN: BOTTOM LINE: Gov. Palin is stonewalling on Troopergate; the Legislature should issue subpoenas.
Yes! They can get the whole thing wrapped up October 31!
Peter...
Besides, I'd be alot more worried about this and this.
Before you call me a rumor mongerer, let me say I'm playing well within the Althouse Rules of discourse. And Mickey Kaus Rules.
alphaliberal= ground static and noise.
Bloggingheads @ 39:16
If a social anthropologist of the future ever gets to see this Blogginghead episode, and wants a clear picture of the America of 2008, you can get no better example than the two opposite reactions of Ann Althouse and Jane Hamsher.
On the Jane's side, there is sheer unbelievability that other people do not see what they see. She is primed to dismiss people's intelligence and judgement because of this mindset.
On Ann's side, she wants practicality and common sense to prevail. Remove the bums by elections not by retaliatory legal actions which could affect handcuff future presidents.
There is a very awkward pause there as Jane stares down Ann, and the latter shakes her head for a second. "Well, I do". Ann's voice begins to quaver.
Then Hamsher lashes into her with a pickaxe voice -- "WHAT COULD A PRESIDENT DO, Ann...".
It was a very disagreeable moment.
Americans probably will never live this specific moment but they know it all too well when they are trying to defend their position versus people like Hamsher.
Liberals seem to be using Obama for their own ends -- an empty vessel to fill with demands, a Dear Santa list of wishes.
I think normal Americans perceive that, and that's frightening.
Republicans don't particularly demand anything of McCain except that he not drop the ball if someone attacks us, and that he do a competent job with a Democratic Congress.
*continues listening*
AL - yes, I agree. Working is not vacation. That's what I said.
She is still governor, and she's going to be campaigning pretty hard for 60 days. Maybe she wants to spend a few days with her family while she's working as governor.
And I don't think any sane Americans ever bought into the "you're either with us or we'll prosecute and jail you for your crime of being politically/ideologically disagreeable to us" line that Hamsher et al have been pounding on for the last 8 years.
Please provide a link where Hamsher says this. This is not what she says.
She enumerates a number of areas where the Bushies have committed crimes and misdemeanors and calls for them to be held to account. For the law to be enforced.
That's nowhere near your dishonest characterization.
miller, are you saying that's why she can't talk to the press or that's why she needs to stop cooperating with the investigation she previously welcomed?
I'm not following you..
name one? I'll name three:
Sally Quinn
Andrew Sullivan
Gloria Steinem
And that's without a moment's hesitation or a resort to google. I could probably name 1,000 if I wanted to
I agree with the comments about civil war. You can't have a democracy if the leaders are afraid to lose an election.
gcotharn said...
"Consider, because Jane Hamsher does not: a war for oil is arguably in the national interest of the United States. Cheaper oil saves lives and promotes health in an uncountable multitude of ways. Cheaper oil promotes life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"
I feel as though I've blundered into a utilitarian conference! ;)
AlphaLiberal said...
She enumerates a number of areas where the Bushies have committed crimes and misdemeanors and calls for them to be held to account. For the law to be enforced.
She enumerated nothing. She enumerated her opinion of what she thinks should be illegal. There is a difference.
I feel as though I've blundered into a utilitarian conference! ;)
Or being a fly on the wall at Jonathan Swift's house...
Going away to Alaska is ... going away to Alaska. As Freud said, sometimes a trip is just a trip.
You might be affected by the heavy breathing of the leftist sites you quote. Calm down and try some Vap-O-Rub.
If potential crimes were committed, by anyone who lives in America, we should probably look into it...right?
Can someone please explain to me what a "potential" crime is? Either a crime was committed or it wasn't.
If the Dems have evidence that crimes were committed, then begin impeachment proceedings. If no such evidence exists, then stop talking about prosecuting people.
The idea is simply ludicrous.
Peter V. Bella said..."I suppose you are an expert in the investigative process and criminal procedure; you have studied investigative techniques, laws, criminal procedure and you have put that in practice? You have studied and applied the rules of evidence? Or are you an expert in spouting your personal political opinions?"
I've never implied anything of the kind so I have no idea what you're talking about.
I've said one thing, again and again: If a new administration feels there are grounds for an investigation into whether laws were broken by the Bush administration or anyone associated with our government, let the chips fall where they may...but without an investigation, how would we ever know?
Now, let me ask you a question: If either Obama or McCain is elected and they suspect an ex-Senator or an ex-Congressman from the previous administration or from the opposite party...was stealing money, taking bribes, doing anything of a nefarious nature...would you also say don't investigate or as Ann puts it; "piss away" your time?
Well??
dogwood asks: "Can someone please explain to me what a "potential" crime is? Either a crime was committed or it wasn't."
Well...if you see someone entering the house next door, but you don't know who that person is, and you know the neighbors are out of town...would you ignore it...or consider it to be a "potential crime" being committed?
*And if you say you'd ignore it, you might want to pass that on to your neighbors.
What "crimes" are suspected here, and if they don't do anything NOW, when they ARE IN POWER IN CONGRESS, they why do they need to wait until Jan 20 2009?
You have failed REPEATEDLY to answer this point.
Michael said...
Well??
You are an expert in spouting personal political opinions.
Note to Jane.
Pitchforks and torches really only work in three scenarios.
Gay-centric 1930s horror films
Wicca union meetings
Nazi Harvest festivals
Scythes are out too. Personally, I'd urge my readers to pick up "barrows and cudgels" instead.
If crimes have been committed then Bush should be prosecuted.
The problem is that many if not most people have a sinking feeling that Bush will be charged with "doing stuff that Democrats don't agree with." And every time "lying to go to war" gets thrown out it only verifies those fears.
But by all means, I think the Democrats should make posters and run ads about how they will put Bush to trial if they win. And keep attacking Palin's inexperience, especially by comparing Obama's ability to run a national campaign compared to Palin's ability to run a small town.
Shot of Ann's drinking water from a Mason jar at minute 41:30.
Okay, it's not. But damn. Are all your liquid receptacles the size of Nebraska, Ann?
Ann, please make this stop. The picture at the top of the blog has got to go - Casper thinks you two are pale.
And the foaming liberals - my goodness - becalm yourselves. You have got your thongs all, well, nevermind - that's too disgusting to contemplate.
And it never makes sense to bring a cudgel to a gunfight...
Well...if you see someone entering the house next door, but you don't know who that person is, and you know the neighbors are out of town...would you ignore it...or consider it to be a "potential crime" being committed?
If they are climbing through the window, yes, if they are using a key to open the door, then no, it is probably just a friend or relative checking on the place.
There is no evidence that any crime has been committed, but deep in your heart you are convinced there has been if only you can dig deep enough long enough to find that smoking gun.
Such behavior is not a criminal investigation, it is a witch hunt.
Congress has oversight responsibilities and if they discover high crimes and misdemeanors, then impeach. If not, then stop with all of this nonsense.
The criminal prosecution of Bush and Cheney for political crimes will not occur, because it would mark the end of the US as a coherent political entity. Thus, while Hamsher is insane and thereby capable of anything (ex, "Natural Born Killers"), Obama it too smart to let himself become America's Mugabe.
He is? Where is the evidence? He is a blank slate upon which can be written anything. Based on his long associations with Marxists and terrorists, I think he looks forward to becoming Barry Mugabe.
"If they haven't committed any crimes, they shouldn't fear investigation or trial."
Isn't that a line in "Darkness at Noon"? Liberals really are insane. Show trials of Repbublicans would not only damage the country, it would destroy an Obama administration and ensure Republican rule for the next 20 years. This is why a part of me loves the idea. But, from a rational perspect with the interests of the country in mind, it would be a national tragedy. People's lives would be ruined over political differences and sincere efforts to defend the country and there would be no restraining the other side in making recriminations when the political tables turned. It would essentially turn the US into a banana republic where the losing side in each election going off to jail and eventually one side seizing power because it has nothing to lose. Read the history of why Ceaser crossed the Rubricon to see an example of this. Once Ceaser knew the other side was going to exile him as soon as he stepped down from the army, he had nothing to lose by launching a coup.
Why are you all arguing with Michael? He's just trying to rile you up. Ignore him and he'll eventually leave and troll somewhere else.
Personally, I'd urge my readers to pick up "barrows and cudgels" instead.
In a pinch, that hammer and sickle you've got lying around will do.
Doyle is at least honest enough to admit that there would be a major political price to pay for impeaching and the dems dont have the courage to do it. Congress, on both sides of the aisle, are hardly profiles in courage; rather profiles in jello.
Lets assume that BHO is elected President. All of sudden BHO is now wearing a different hat from senator and candidate; he now has incurrred the stewardship of the Executive branch for future presidents. He will set a precedent for his own prosecution when the future president, say Hillary Clinton, but more like Sarah Palin, takes office.
And he will have set the precedent for senior members of his administration. Who wants to serve under that threat? How do you attract bright and innovative people? You will get nothing but ass covering drones. Hearings to get the job are bad enough; serving under the express threat of prosecution is a bit more serious.
The other major downside to such an executive branch driven action is it effectively renders neutral the constitutional power of congress to impeach--I suspect even the more sober of the congress might balk at a usurpation of their peroagatives, because that how it will be seen, no matter the rhetoric prosecution is wrapped in.
I dont think Obama is a stupid man. As someone said up thread, this is just a sop thrown out to the moonbat wing, like Hamsher, to keep them quiet as he tacks back to the center where he is weakest.
My point exactly rev. He just moves the goal posts. If they did that in football then we wouldn't have had THE WORLD CHAMPION NEW YORK GIANTS.
Who won their first game on way to a repeat.
This dude is just like the Jets, noisy, annoying and ultimately a loser. Don't waste your time.
Ignore them as you should the Jets and this old guy they got, I forget his name, Brett Sommers or something like that.
Did I tell you lately that the Giants won the Superbowl?
I finally figured it all out. Those who are calling for the show trials of Bush & Co. are shills for the Washington Bar. Who gains if there are investigations, impeachments, indictments, and trials? The DC lawyers who charge between 500-1000+ per hour to investigate and defend.
You people are shameless! How much did those lawyers pay you to spout such nonsense?
The above makes as much sense as investigating if there is the need to investigate whether or not to investigate if a crime has been committed based upon the political opinions of escapees from the lunatic asylum.
Once upon a time, we would have nice coffee house threads where we could all joke around and start the weekend off right while goofing off at work. What happened those days?
Where have you gone Joe Dimaggio (Mr. Coffee)?
OK Bush, you are going to hang for the crimes you may or may not have committed. Before we hang you and Cheney and all the rest of your evil cabal who joined you on your eight year magical mystery tour, we are going to try you in public.
It will be a fair trial. First we're going to try you, then we're going to hang you.
(Judge, Jury, and Executioner Joe "Bean" Biden)
So, the Giants beat the Deadskins. Wow. And they scored a touchdown against the "awesome" Redskin defense. D'oh - I just spelled that "defence" - have been reading too many VB posts. But regardless of spelling, it is pronounced "dee fence".
But back to the game - it's going to be a long season, no? What will happen when they meet a real (tm) team?
What is it with Jets and old QBs--starting to look like the Oakland Raiders of the 1970s--Im looking at you George Blanda.
Trooper York said...
Once upon a time, we would have nice coffee house threads where we could all joke around and start the weekend off right while goofing off at work. What happened those days?
Alas, Troop, those days are gone forever. We have been infected with the disease of political certainty. No more coffee houses, no more canoli, no more sitting on the front stoop waving at the neighbors. We are all different now.
Those were the days my friend we'd thought they'd never end...
D'oh - I just spelled that "defence" - have been reading too many VB posts.
Meanie!
...in fairness to you, there are many to read. ;)
Revenant said..."Why are you all arguing with Michael? He's just trying to rile you up. Ignore him and he'll eventually leave and troll somewhere else."
Rev, if you have an opinion or argument to present...present it.
Dismissing me as a "troll" is waste of time and illustrates a lack of conviction or opinion. And I would not consider most of the back and forth here as being "argumentative."
Don't want to take part?
Then don't.
I like the "ignore" part.
How about that UMich - Miami game?
And it never makes sense to bring a cudgel to a gunfight...
Hah! Hillary Clinton* is a cudgel.
If Obama had chosen her instead of that bloviating pitchfork Biden, game over.
*I wrote "Ann Clinton" before deleting it. But I wonder...Freudian slip, eh?
Michael -
You said:
Now, let me ask you a question: If either Obama or McCain is elected and they suspect an ex-Senator or an ex-Congressman from the previous administration or from the opposite party...was stealing money, taking bribes, doing anything of a nefarious nature...would you also say don't investigate or as Ann puts it; "piss away" your time?
Those are all crimes in a different category. They're of a different nature, closer instead to what Nixon went down for.
The only credible grounds put forward for investigation for Bush are for things he did as part of is duties as President. Please stop ignoring this distinction as thought it does not exist. It is very important.
Did I tell you lately that the Giants won the Superbowl?
Only because my quarterback taught his younger brother most of what he knows.
So, in a way, the Colts won the Superbowl two years in a row.
Go Colts!
Go Colts!
Wait, was it you or MCG who were against dynasties in American life?
GO PEYTON and ELI!
Heirs to America's NFL Royal Family.
Cudgel = cankle? The things you learn when there is a hurricane on...
Hey, speaking of which, Ann - last week I went to a wedding. I got dressed then notice that something felt funny - I was wearing pants and the material was brushing against my lower legs in a most unfamiliar way. That was the first time I had worn long pants since May.
I'm only opposed to political dynasties, unless it is my own.
As for NFL dynasties, I was cheering wildly for Eli during the Superbowl. That kid took so much criticism when he started, I was just thrilled to see him pull it off.
Henceforth, the NFL championship game shall be called The Manning Bowl.
It's absolutely insane to prosecute politicians for their policies. You penalize them by voting them out of office. Republicans weren't even stupid enough to try this, sticking instead to the vain political suicide that was the attempt to impeach Bill Clinton.
Moreover, there has been ample opportunity to vote politicians who voted for whatever policies anger Hamscher and her fringe pals. Each passing day presents an opportunity to impeach or recall elected officials.
Political suicide is exactly the right term. Hopefully, Americans will reject this out of hand by choosing McCain. If the left actually goes through with this threat, it will very likely be political suicide for them. If not, it will be a frightening blow to the constitutional order, as a precedent will be set for criminalizing the policy of political enemies.
I am horrified.
The Manning Bowl.
Then Peyton aka Mr. Clean should be all over that.
If not, it will be a frightening blow to the constitutional order, as a precedent will be set for criminalizing the policy of political enemies.
All roads lead back to Nixon.
Talk about game-changer, Watergate was a nation-changer -- we've never really recovered.
Hamsher: Four thousand people lie dead because we were lied into war. That is murder!
So much for reasoned argument. Who's got the rope?
@Ann 8 min 50 seconds.
"It's sexist to look at a womans body" didn't you do a whole blogging heads with Gavin talking about Hillary's breasts?
I remember agreeing with you that a woman's boobs were in the same realm as a man's hair or suit?
How can you call it sexist now?
I wish there were more boobs in my hair and my suit, a lot more often.
As a native Texan, I disliked President Bush back when he was governor of Texas. I never thought he showed wise judgment on anything he did in Texas or the first few years of his presidency.
However why do we assume he lied about the reasons why we went to war in Iraq? I really think he believes what he is saying. And if he really believes what he is saying, there is no reason for him to lie. He believes so many other things that many of us disagree with - creationism, gun control, keeping Teri Schiavo alive. How is going to war in Iraq any different?
President Bush made a decision to go to war most likely based on reasons that were real to him. He just didn't have the wisdom to see he was making a big mistake.
Thomas -- The kooky left defines lie as anything they disagree with.
Tell me it's not true, lovable fringers.
haha
Liar.
Define "lie." Maybe that's the problem.
According to Websters, lie means:
- to have sexual intercourse —used with with
Oh wait, wrong one, here we go:
- to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
Note the word "intent".
Miller - consider it through this lens: "to a man who doesn't understand the concept of a mistake, a lie is any statement shown to be at variance with the truth."
Thanks for the set-up!
I have no experience or credentials whatsoever. I was basically plucked from obscurity because I can give a good speech. Please elect me president.
That woman has few credentials and experience. She was basically plucked from obscurity because she can give a good speech that her evil overlords assuredly wrote. There's no way we can elect her as vice president.
Someone I (and hundreds others) trust told me that it's raining in Ohio.
I say, "hey, it's raining in Ohio."
Turns out the guy I trust was wrong - he actually was in Indiana when he reported the news.
Who was lying?
"It's absolutely insane to prosecute politicians for their policies."
You have a habit of mischaracterizing what people say. You prefer to erect and flog your own strawman.
If it didn't rain in Ohio, you should be prosecuted.
Alpha -- What will the prosecutions be for? Cheney's burglary of the Qwiki-Mart?
Trope, trope trope, the memes are marching. Just prior to the war, the argument was that Hussein would use poisin gas or something ghastly on our troops and 40,000 of them would die. Prior to that the meme was that 5000 children were dying per month in Iraq because of our sanctions....Ms Hamsher is very self righteous. There would have been a downside to Saddam's continuance in power. Would she accept any responsibility to that continuance. If we had pulled out at the time that Harry Reid said the cause was lost, there would have been a great many more deaths in Iraq. Would the Democrats have been in any way responsible for those deaths.....No need to answer. None of the reprisals in Vietnam and Cambodia were the fault of Communists and their enablers in the west. It was all Nixon's fault....Ms Hamsher thinks that only white Republicans are capable of criminal governance. The wretched of the earth are not smart enough to do anything wrong. She is a bigot.
"You have a habit of mischaracterizing what people say."
This is, as they say, priceless.
Have a laugh!
Why leave this site for a laugh? I just wait for your next post.
Funnier than all get-out.
There would have been a downside to Saddam's continuance in power. Would she accept any responsibility to that continuance.
Amazing. You think that we have responsibility for what happens in other countries? We're to b lame for what Saddam Hussein dis?
Please elaborate why and for how many countries this applies.
There is a widespread killing in Darfur. Are you saying we're also responsible for that?
By your rule we'd be invading one country after another. Why Iraq but not others?
Hate to be exposed to points of views that aren't in lockstep with your own, miller?
Please state the legal reasonings we used to justify our invasion of Iraq.
You can find them, I believe, with something called "google."
You bet! I live in a double-wide with my dog Blue. All I do is listen to people who think just like I do.
Yep, you called it.
We can invade any country we want, at any time, by an act of Congress and, in limited cases, under the sole jurisdiction of the president.
It's right there in the Constitution, Alpha, the supreme law of the land, which no law or authority supersedes. Read it sometime. It's not that long.
You got a doublewide, Miller? I am so jealous.
I needed a doublewide for Bertha and the cans o dog chow. Nothin' more than that.
Yee haw.
Trooper,
Michael= Luckyoldson.
I thought the same thing at first. It's hard to change your writing style. But michael hasn't let slip a "what a hoot" yet. If it is Lucy, he's doing a pretty good job. Don't see many fuck offs, blow me, or take your meds yet.
But yeah, leave it to a librul to think that anyone who refuses to listen to a second-rate Jon Stewart is "afraid" of other points of view.
Jon Stewart and Buddy Hackett are two (of many) so-called funny men that I choose not to listen to any more, because after listening to them a few times, I never found them to be as funny as their fans thought them to be.
It's not a matter of principle. It's simply a matter of taste.
Alpha shows no self-confidence when he throws up these links and essentially acknowledges that he is a crappy advocate.
Perhaps, Alpha, if you could argue better, or be more reasonable and less unhinged, you wouldn't have to rely on those stellar political minds at Comedy Central.
For the record, if you're going to impeach you do it while he's in office (obviously...) Prosecution after the fact only gives a president a reason not to step down...
Hoosier saidIf the Dems are that chickenshit as you say to go after Bush who has a 30% approval rating for his high crimes and misdemeanors then they have no fucking business running anything
Doyle responded: Preaching to the choir.
Doyle can I assume then that you will be voting a third party in November?
Palin coverup underway.
So, UWS, are you against this ridiculous idea?
Surely whatever scandal you are linking to will stick. Right, Alpha? It has to.
Interesting also, that you would link to something called "talking points," given your hatred of the things. Or are they only bad when Republicans have them?
Torture could be an impeachable offense, if we grant that the admin. tortured.
You could impeach bush for screwing up the first 6 years of the war if that's what you believe (and if bush lost Iraq like we were close to doing before the surge, would any conservative not be in favor of impeaching a president who couldn't win a war with the most advanced military in the history of warfare?)
7 machos, william said
"There would have been a downside to Saddam's continuance in power. Would she accept any responsibility to that continuance."
I said, why are we responsible for what Saddam Hussein does in his country?
You response with this non-sequiter:
"We can invade any country we want, at any time, by an act of Congress and, in limited cases, under the sole jurisdiction of the president. "
So, you duck the question and then come back and attack me?
Really, you're so bad at making an argument it's not even funny. You can never back up a single allegation you make. All you have is insults. You're the Don Rickles of Althousesiania.
Or, maybe you're just pre-pubescent and haven't developed the capacity for rational thought. The evidence supports that conclusion.
I voted for bush 2x based on the Iraq war, it would be silly for me to be for his prosecution.
I'm for torturing AQ detainees, but open to people making the case for impeachment while he's in office. Tough choices require tough consequences for those actions even if you believe those actions needed to be done.
What is the high crime or misdemeanor of losing a war?
I honestly believe that fringe leftists have never read the Constitution.
Dudes, it will take you 30 minutes, tops, to really digest it, even with your lack of education and sophistication.
the 2nd time, not 2x....since we weren't at war the first time...
It would be a high crime to lose a war, yes.
No forgiveness for losing. Ask the romans.
If the surge had failed bush would be out of office already.
Were we responsible for what Saddam did from 1994 to 2000, when we bombed the shit out of Iraq and killed many, many people? Were we responsible for what Milosevic did when we did the same thing in Serbia?
It's a stupid question, dude. It doesn't matter. We can attack anybody, for any reason.
Hoosier, I'll give you one more shot at understanding this:
Yes Michael I got that part. So what you're saying is that Congress needs a super duper majority for an impeachment otherwise the President can commit crimes to his heart's content.
So lets look at the 105th Congress that impeached Clinton
228 GOP --- 206 Dem --- 1 Indy
Practially the same darn makeup as the current congress yet they managed to get impeachment proceedings against Clinton. How about that.
So your argument fails again but thanks for playing.
1. No group close to a majority was ever going to impeach Bush. The perception that we were losing in Iraq was a great gift for Democrats and the sensible ones realized that.
2. Losing a war is not a high crime. Where is it in any statute that says it's illegal to lose a war?
It rallied Demcorats to Clinton's defense. It is easy to forget it now, but the extreme left of the Democratic Party -- the Obama types -- really disliked Clinton. He signed Don't Ask Don't Tell, the DOMA, and welfare reform. If Bush was impeached, his approval ratings would go up.
Point taken Rev.
It would be a high crime to lose a war, yes.
When did it become illegal to lose a war?
The attempt to impeach Clinton was a power grab and a politically suicidal thing for the Republicans to do. I am embarrassed about it.
Why does the constitution not list what is a "high crime or misdemeanor?"
It leaves it very open.
Are you telling me that if Iraq had 50k wounded americans 4k dead and it was now run by AQ and partitioned off by Iran that the populace of this country wouldn't impeach bush for negligence of his duties as CC?
it would have been a gross negligence and he would not serve out the remainder of his 4 years as pres. if we were airlifting people out of our embassy while the Iranian army was pouring into Southern Iraq.
If they haven't committed any crimes, they shouldn't fear investigation or trial.
You know that's interesting. My dad was a cop and I'm betting that Middle Class Guy will back me up on this. A cop can pull you over for doing 35mph in a 35mph zone and if he wants to give you a ticket, he'll find a valid reason for the citation.
It's absolutely insane to prosecute politicians for their policies. You penalize them by voting them out of office.
You do agree there are limits to this, correct? When the Allies defeated Germany, we didn't all say, "Well, Hitler's dead, let's move on." Instead we held the Nuremberg Trials. Would you characterize them as a mere witch hunt?
I think each of us would agree that there was some point between being suspected of fibbing about a blowjob, and being responsible for the murder of six million Jews, where each of us would want to investigate the previous administration's actions.
You don't have to impeach a pres. because he did something illegal.
Impeachment doesn't mention "breaking the law".
losing a war is a misdemeanor of a high sort.
I only watched the "prosecute Bush" segment.
I thought the way you spoke in a rather lawyerly fashion about a political process was weak. Perhaps you should've brought up impeachment right away rather than at the end. I think that was the strongest point.
Hamsher said, "If he didn't commit a crime, then he shouldn't be afraid."
Okay, Jane. Let's put a surveillance camera somewhere on your street with a view of your front door (no nearer than across the street). Or let's have the IRS audit your tax forms for the last 7 years. If you didn't commit any crime, you shouldn't be afraid.
"Don't see many fuck offs, blow me, or take your meds yet."
Wow, rearrange those actions and you have a description of my perfect Saturday night!
A "high crime or misdemeanor" is pretty much whatever Congress says it is. Congress can impeach the President for wearing white after Labor Day if it wants to. The only check on the impeachment power is the need for supermajority support. That's why the only result of impeachment is removal from office -- not fines or jail time. It isn't a real trial.
That's a nifty fantasy you have there, UWS. All of it is totally, totally implausible. None of that came close to happening. The part about Iran is especially amusing. I'm pretty sure I speak for Bush and the Joint Chiefs when I say that nothing would be better for America than if Iran attempted open hostilities with our military.
We were never actually losing in Iraq. We weren't even close to losing.
Enjoy your masturbatory fantasies, though.
What "crimes" are suspected here, and if they don't do anything NOW, when they ARE IN POWER IN CONGRESS, they why do they need to wait until Jan 20 2009?
You have failed REPEATEDLY to answer this point.
Incorrect. Michael has pointed out that they can't do anything because the Dems hold a paper thin majority in Congress.
Thus they need to wait until Obama is elected and hopefully have a super majority in Congress before the Night of the Long Knives can commence.
Hahahaha. Oh Alphy, you really kill me. I don't usually agree with your unique POV, but DAMN! Jane Hampster a babe? That's even more distracting, thought interrupting and frankly nauseating than today's approved, loud, red meat for the Democrat wing of the Democrat Party Obama bait-and-switch talking point using the threatening Chimpy McBushChenyHitler impeachment to deflect the rapturous gaze from a Democrat Congress who couldn't even stop a war funding bill with a majority in both Houses. Talk about commitment and spine!
I eagerly await tomorrow's attempt. Amuse me, Progressives; I thought entertainment was one industry where your kind were competitive. Let's see your best stuff.
Hahahaha.
And pass the word to whomever writes Obama's shit for use in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. it's Nittany Lion, not Nitt a li.
I'd appreciate it.
And FLS invokes Hitler, proving unequivocally that his side has been pummeled in this argument.
I accept your surrender. Thank you.
seven...wtf.
did you not read that I am and was in favor of the iraq war? but if bush lost it, I would be in favor of impeaching his sorry ass.
We very well near did lose it, after the Sammarra mosque bombing the whole place went to shit.
Progressives look so fucking cute in buckskin and Birkenstocks. Let me see Jane Hampster's feet.
McCain himself has based his entire campaign around the fact that without the surge we would have lost the war.
UWS,
It would be pretty difficult to impeach the President, especially if he withdrew from Iraq due to Congressional pressure to do so, i.e. they cut off funding, etc.
The President would blame Congress for the failure, while Congress would blame the President, and I still don't think you get the necessary votes in the Senate.
1. What is Godwin's Law?
Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin
(godwin@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to
the Jargon File:
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
UWS -- What army was defeating us? What battles did we lose?
He spent a whole paragraph in his acceptance speech saying that he fought fellow republicans and bush himself over the surge and that "I would rather lose the presidency than lose the war."
...and the ironic point of Godwin's Law sails over FLS's head...
machos -- we won the war in Iraq five years ago. Why are the Republicans still talking about someday winning the war in Iraq?
Nobody beat us in Vietnam either but we lost that war too macho.
Nobody beat the russians on the field of battle and they lost Afghanistan.
We didn't win the revolutionary war by beating the british on the field of battle either.
We would have and will only lose the war in the event that we leave the country, and then only because the unstable government that we created and support will likely fall.
Again, what army would have or will chase us out? When we pull our military out of Germany, will we finally lose World War II?
Any defeat in Iraq is purely self-inflicted, by the left.
...and the ironic point of Godwin's Law sails over FLS's head...
And 7m proves he cannot distinguish between inevitability and loss. Hint: loss is not inevitable.
You don't win a war by killing more soldiers (that helps) you win by achieving objectives.
We could turn Iraq into a parking lot with bombs and it would be rightly considered a loss.
Hahahaha, Hey Alfy, fuck arguing with these Neanderthals, let's watch Rudy's speech again and pick up some pointers for H-h-h-harry and Nice Nipples Nancy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Da1YmYRvU6w
Nobody beat us in Vietnam either but we lost that war too
False. Russia and China were supplying vast amounts of arms to the North Vietnamese. Moreover, we did lose battles to that army.
Nobody beat the russians on the field of battle and they lost Afghanistan.
False. There is no field of battle in Afghanistan to win. It's a mountainous wilderness that is impossible to conquer with conventional technology. This is why the Bush administration rightly resisted nation-building there.
We didn't win the revolutionary war by beating the british on the field of battle either.
False. The American army was remarkably adept and did win battles. And we were supported by the French. The British left when they realized that it wasn't in their interest to fight. This is your best analogy, though. What you need to demonstrate is that it is not in our interest to fight.
We could turn Iraq into a parking lot with bombs and it would be rightly considered a loss.
Like Nagasaki and Dresden?
This is the most boring thread ever.
How did we get 50k wounded soldiers and 4k dead? By winning every fight?
IED and snipers don't count as losing fights? Not being able to control areas counts as not losing ground?
Palladian -- I agree. Somebody's got to fight this crap. That somebody is me.
Lead us somewhere else!
Our goal in japan macho....was complete destruction of the enemy.
so stated objectives complete.
our stated objective so not total destruction of iraq so...
Hoosier,
I thought my last comment would suffice, but you just-don't-get-it...do you?
You throw back numbers from when Clinton was in office, without noting the fact that 5 Democrats voted with the Republicans for impeachment in the House, but, because none did in the Senate, it failed.
Right now you're not going to get any Republicans to side with the Democrats on damn near anything...they haven't for the past 7 plus years...have they?
And once again, since you're evidently not going to let this go:
Even if the Democrats had jumped right into the impeachment proceedings in January of 2007, between the moderate Democrats, the lawyering, the stalling and the general back and forth bickering over specifics...and of course, the fact that no Republican would vote with the Democrats anyway...they still wouldn't be close to an impeachment today.
Unless somebody here has access to a time machine I'm afraid we'll just have to wait and see who is elected President and what they choose to do.
Michael, you DO realize that once the new administration is in office, you can't impeach Bush, right?
So with 220+ Democrats in the House, they CAN'T issue an impeachment? How is that?
Ann,
Don't listen to the people who tell you not to go on bhtv. I enjoy your appearances. I would have preferred the present one to have gotten a little more into the meat of the Obama campaign taking a position on prosecuting his political rivals (a horrible idea). I thought you should have come down a lot harder on Hamsher trying to paint your position as "evil doers should not be punished." I think Hamsher had a point that she didn't quite make about left wing attacks on Palin. There have been a lot of unthinking people in the foaming underbelly of the left making gotcha attacks on Palin's fitness to be a mother because her teenage daughter is pregnant. Mostly, these attacks have been met by clearer heads telling the lunatics to shut up. The right wing loons have a history of making these attacks against women and the left wing loons can barely (and don't always) refrain, against their own interests, from pointing out the irony.
I'm surprised it wasn't argued that the Legislature doesn't get to say what constraints the President; the President in fact can defy the Legislature and the Supreme Court both.
If the Legislature doesn't like it, it can impeach and remove the President.
Then the voters get their say in the next election. The chief say is what happens to the Legislators.
(Which constrains the Legislators.)
Those are all the checks and balances the Constitution needs.
If the President steals or commits murder, the Legislature would have no trouble impeaching and removing, and the voters would concur.
A prosecution starting in the next administration, without that weighing by the voters of the relative merits of the impeachment, is probably abuse of executive power.
oops Ann just argued it. It thought the topic had ended when I posted that.
Ann said: I made a strategic decision to give her the rope to hang herself.
And she obliged you.
miller,
Try to find any of my postings that reflect a belief on my part that the new President can impeach an ex-President. The discussion is centered on pursuing criminal charges, if any.
I'd think you were trying to be witty, but based on your previous comments I have a feeling you're being serious.
*By the way, I visited your blog and you have one hell of a following.
The British left when they realized that it wasn't in their interest to fight.
Kind of. They quit after their army was trapped by American and French forces at Yorktown and the British navy was defeated by the French navy.
The surrender by Cornwallis led to political changes in parliament, which then decided to quit the war.
So yeah, they chose to stop fighting but defeat on the battlefield made the decision a lot easier.
Or put it this way. Impeachment is what constrains prosecution over what the respective powers of the branches ought to be.
It therefore also authorizes prosecution over those matters.
It authorizes it by way of input from the voters, on matters of powers.
No impeachment and removal, no prosecution.
"No impeachment and removal, no prosecution."
Probably, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Michael, I realize you're trying to be profound, but you don't speak clearly.
The Democrat Congress can RIGHT NOW impeach Bush and Cheney. Take them 10 minutes. No supermajority needed. Just 218 votes.
Which they have.
Why aren't they?
Michael -
I don't think you understand that ONLY THE HOUSE VOTE is necessary to impeach.
Clinton WAS impeached because the House had the votes.
The Democratic House could impeach Bush at any time they felt like it. The only thing the SENATE is needed for is to CONVICT, i.e. REMOVE the President. That's what failed in Clinton's case and why he served out the rest of his term despite being impeached.
So to recap: You are wrong. the Senate is not needed to impeach Bush. The Democrats have had a year and a half to impeach Bush. They could have done it at any time.
The only elected President (so far) to be impeached is Bill Clinton. That's a delicious fact.
The Democrat Congress could, today (or really, Tuesday next week, since they would have adjourned Thursday), impeach Bush. In fact, they could vote articles of impeachment every remaining day in the current legislative session if they so felt like it. They have the votes to do it.
What they lack is the will.
And they lack that will in many areas.
Remember their vow to cut off funding for the Iraq War? How did that promise go?
Sound and Fury, signifying nothing. That's the stage they're in.
unthinking people in the foaming underbelly of the left making gotcha attacks on Palin's fitness to be a mother because her teenage daughter is pregnant
And this is because the left is society's guardian of sexual morality?
No. The left is merely suffering from a bit of Schadenfreude -- "We could have told you abstinence education doesn't work."
Remember their vow to cut off funding for the Iraq War? How did that promise go?
Americans have no stomach for it right now. It's hard to admit to yourself that you were hoodwinked, flimflammed, bamboozled.
But those feelings will fade away someday. And we will still need to dig into what happened, so that we don't unthinkingly be fooled again -- always assuming we were fooled of course.
Irrelevant whether Americans have the "stomach" for it. The Democrats have been saying for years that this war is unpopular by wide margins. How much "stomach" do we have to have before the Democrat Party gets off their duff and does what they say they were going to do in 2006? You know, San Fran Nan and her promises to cut off funding?
How's that going? She doing what you elected her to do - oppose the war funding?
Or has Bush somehow made her do his bidding - again and again?
He is the evil, stupid, genius. Democrats hate him and yet keep doing what HE wants and not what THEY want.
228 votes and they're just talk and no action.
Even if the Democrats had jumped right into the impeachment proceedings in January of 2007, between the moderate Democrats, the lawyering, the stalling and the general back and forth bickering over specifics...and of course, the fact that no Republican would vote with the Democrats anyway...they still wouldn't be close to an impeachment today.
Well then you missed my whole point. If there was some reason for impeachment vs Bush (war crimes, illegal something or other) it was incumbant upon Congress to move on that. Consider that the 105th Congress shot the dice on the proceedings over a lie over a BJ, this Congress has much more serious allegations as Biden has alluded to yet the majority party is apparently too spineless to pursue it.
My point which you clearly missed, like our last encounter, was if there were criminal actions that Bush committed, there are Constitutional means to deal with it: ie; impeachment.
Unless somebody here has access to a time machine I'm afraid we'll just have to wait and see who is elected President and what they choose to do.
Well you can't impeach an ex-president. Going after them after the fact has been raised for the last couple years is simply a witch hunt.
That is what you-just-don't-get.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন