Bush is toast

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:08 am

Are you saying I'm some sort of clown here to amuse you?

Ummmmmmm...

Yes.

dnpmakkah · Post by **dnpmakkah** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:29 am

Countertrey wrote:Ummmmmmm...Yes.

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:56 am

CH1 - We've been over what you think are impeachable offenses. They aren't... but nice try anyway. Good luck getting the blue-dog Democrats you just got elected as freshman to go along with impeachment. Additionally, even if you had whacked-out San Francisco libs as every member of the Dem House you still would be stuck with Bush even if you guys did manage to impeach him. I hope I don't have to explain why to you.

Probably none, since Pelosi wants Bush around to spark the needed investigations that could cost the Republicans huge losses for a decade. Only the tip of the the Republican criminal and treasonous iceberg has been exposed so far. A hard rain is gonna fall.

God I hope they start the investigations in hour 101. I really do.

It would hasten the return of the very close seats( that the Dems won in Red states) back to the GOP in 2008. so, please, by all means, bring on the investigations. And while we're at it, lets investigate William Jefferson and Harry Reid too.

Aren't you the guy who thought the democrats could take neither the House nor Senate?

I made my predictions as "anyone's ballgame" about 3-4 weeks out of the election. I thought the Dems would win the House when it was about 3-4 weeks out but I wasn't entirely sure since anything can change even in a span of a few days. I was fairly confident that the GOP would hold onto a slim majority in the Senate as I didn't think George allen would continue to run such a feckless campaign and respond to the mud slinging thrown his way. Alas, instead of attacks on the issues, he responded to the Webb campaign's and the Washington Posts personal attacks with more personal attacks. Bad move.

Except for the fact that it emboldens our enemies around the world and they are counting the days till the Dems defund everything and we chopper out our last troops and they can replay 1974-1980 all over again - this was actually a GOOD thing for our country. The GOP can shake loose the dead-weight and return to the roots that they abandoned (and which many conservatives made them pay for in this election). Additionally, Dems held the House for 40 years, the GOP for the last 12. Even if the Dems hold it for 2, 4 or even 6 years it will swing back to the GOP in a smaller timetable. After which it will probably swing back and forth about every 2 - 3 elections. This is good for us as citizens as lobbyists can't get too far with any politician of any political stripe when they have to switch in the next election. Additionally chairmen will realize that it could be soon they are in the minority and will work to include the current minority on legislation instead of ignoring them. So its good for our democracy in a way that the pendulum swings both ways at different times. This is why I am not raving like some leftists have on these boards about stolen elections, etc... I'm more sanguine about it. The people have spoken and now's the time to work for them again and earn their trust back in 2 years.

As for the Senate, for the GOP politically (ecept for the lack of committe chairmanships) it is better to have 49 seats than 51. I , again, trust I do not have to explain why to you.

Finally the BEST reason I have for the Dems taking the House and Senate now that they did it is this -> The Dems are now on the clock and on notice. Since they are in charge of the Legislative Branch they now own part of the Iraq theatre of the War on Terror from here on out. They will share in the blame for how it is prosecuted (how big a share is up to each voter of course). They campaigned without a plan (just on the theme of "we're not Bush"). They now have to come up with one that achieves victory and not papers over a defeat they seem to favor (witness Nancy Pelosi's statements to Britt Hume on Fox News when she said "that the war in Iraq is 'not a war to be won but a situation to be solved.") Its like the dog that chases after cars hoping to catch one, and one day he finally does :shock:

. So the back seat drivers in the Democratic Party will finally have to go on record and present a plan for what they think is the best course instead of always complaining that we just missed a turn.

ATV · Post by **ATV** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 2:24 am

"We've been over what you think are impeachable offenses. They aren't"

Whoa! That was quick. Where was I?

.....Well, I guess that's a wrap. Taiphoon, using all of his legal expertise, has methodically identified all the potential charges and has determined that none of them are impeachable. I'm glad that's over with. Now we can spend our time deciding where to put Bush on Mount Rushmore.

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 2:27 am

.....Well, I guess that's a wrap. Taiphoon, using all of his legal expertise, has methodically identified all the potential charges and has determined that none of them are impeachable. I'm glad that's over with. Now we can spend our time deciding where to put Bush on Mount Rushmore.

thanks man... for your information...less time defending Kerry and more time perusing CH1 and my discussions and you'll see we've hit a laundry list of things he thinks are unconstitutional but which I've shown are actually constitutional.

crazyhorse1 · Post by **crazyhorse1** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:53 am

thaiphoon wrote:CH1 - We've been over what you think are impeachable offenses. They aren't... but nice try anyway. Good luck getting the blue-dog Democrats you just got elected as freshman to go along with impeachment. Additionally, even if you had whacked-out San Francisco libs as every member of the Dem House you still would be stuck with Bush even if you guys did manage to impeach him. I hope I don't have to explain why to you.

Probably none, since Pelosi wants Bush around to spark the needed investigations that could cost the Republicans huge losses for a decade. Only the tip of the the Republican criminal and treasonous iceberg has been exposed so far. A hard rain is gonna fall.

God I hope they start the investigations in hour 101. I really do. It would hasten the return of the very close seats( that the Dems won in Red states) back to the GOP in 2008. so, please, by all means, bring on the investigations. And while we're at it, lets investigate William Jefferson and Harry Reid too.

Aren't you the guy who thought the democrats could take neither the House nor Senate?

I made my predictions as "anyone's ballgame" about 3-4 weeks out of the election. I thought the Dems would win the House when it was about 3-4 weeks out but I wasn't entirely sure since anything can change even in a span of a few days. I was fairly confident that the GOP would hold onto a slim majority in the Senate as I didn't think George allen would continue to run such a feckless campaign and respond to the mud slinging thrown his way. Alas, instead of attacks on the issues, he responded to the Webb campaign's and the Washington Posts personal attacks with more personal attacks. Bad move.

Except for the fact that it emboldens our enemies around the world and they are counting the days till the Dems defund everything and we chopper out our last troops and they can replay 1974-1980 all over again - this was actually a GOOD thing for our country. The GOP can shake loose the dead-weight and return to the roots that they abandoned (and which many conservatives made them pay for in this election). Additionally, Dems held the House for 40 years, the GOP for the last 12. Even if the Dems hold it for 2, 4 or even 6 years it will swing back to the GOP in a smaller timetable. After which it will probably swing back and forth about every 2 - 3 elections. This is good for us as citizens as lobbyists can't get too far with any politician of any political stripe when they have to switch in the next election. Additionally chairmen will realize that it could be soon they are in the minority and will work to include the current minority on legislation instead of ignoring them. So its good for our democracy in a way that the pendulum swings both ways at different times. This is why I am not raving like some leftists have on these boards about stolen elections, etc... I'm more sanguine about it. The people have spoken and now's the time to work for them again and earn their trust back in 2 years.

As for the Senate, for the GOP politically (ecept for the lack of committe chairmanships) it is better to have 49 seats than 51. I , again, trust I do not have to explain why to you.

Finally the BEST reason I have for the Dems taking the House and Senate now that they did it is this -> The Dems are now on the clock and on notice. Since they are in charge of the Legislative Branch they now own part of the Iraq theatre of the War on Terror from here on out. They will share in the blame for how it is prosecuted (how big a share is up to each voter of course). They campaigned without a plan (just on the theme of "we're not Bush"). They now have to come up with one that achieves victory and not papers over a defeat they seem to favor (witness Nancy Pelosi's statements to Britt Hume on Fox News when she said "that the war in Iraq is 'not a war to be won but a situation to be solved.") Its like the dog that chases after cars hoping to catch one, and one day he finally does . So the back seat drivers in the Democratic Party will finally have to go on record and present a plan for what they think is the best course instead of always complaining that we just missed a turn.

You're a bit hopeless on what does or does not constitute both criminal and impreachable offenses, but I agree with your last four or so paragraphs completely. If the dems don't step up, their hegemony will vaporize, as it should.

If the dems don't step up, however, I hope your party can supply some actual conservatives the next time around. Leave your big spenders, looters, religious fascists, bunko artists, liars, racists, torturers, corporate thieves, and phony patriots behind.

Post by **admin** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:13 am

.. leave personal insults like 'you're a bit hopeless' behind or you may find yourself 'a bit suspended'.

dnpmakkah · Post by **dnpmakkah** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:47 pm

Bush looks so worn down. I think he knows history will portray him as a failure and his time in office as the 'dark years'.

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:37 pm

If the dems don't step up, however, I hope your party can supply some actual conservatives the next time around. Leave your big spenders, looters, religious fascists, bunko artists, liars, corporate thieves

At least we agree on something (except the phony patriots and racists - not sure I agree with you that the labels stick). I'd like for the Dems to leave behind their big spenders, looters, enviro-facists, bunko artists, liars and all around general thieves. And in the meantime, if we're having investigations of anyone on the GOP, fairness dictates that someone needs to investigate Reid, Jefferson and Menendez.

Ok...yes I copied you but so what

Look, I really hope as a partisan that the Dems don't step up and become responsbile adults. This would hasten the return of the GOP to the chairmanships in Congress.

But as an American I truly hope that they do. I hope that with the Dems now having to assume blame if things don't go well that they actually stop standing in the way of the US on the War. I truly hope this will begin some bipartisanship on the War.

Peggy Noonan had a great article today. I pretty much agree with most (if not all) of what she said. Here it is;

http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/pn ... =110009221

Yes yes, even though she was a speechwriter for Reagan she makes some points I think you'd agree on too.

Good stuff and something that echoes what I said earlier.

crazyhorse1 · Post by **crazyhorse1** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:22 pm

thaiphoon wrote:
If the dems don't step up, however, I hope your party can supply some actual conservatives the next time around. Leave your big spenders, looters, religious fascists, bunko artists, liars, corporate thieves

At least we agree on something (except the phony patriots and racists - not sure I agree with you that the labels stick). I'd like for the Dems to leave behind their big spenders, looters, enviro-facists, bunko artists, liars and all around general thieves. And in the meantime, if we're having investigations of anyone on the GOP, fairness dictates that someone needs to investigate Reid, Jefferson and Menendez.

Ok...yes I copied you but so what

Look, I really hope as a partisan that the Dems don't step up and become responsbile adults. This would hasten the return of the GOP to the chairmanships in Congress.

But as an American I truly hope that they do. I hope that with the Dems now having to assume blame if things don't go well that they actually stop standing in the way of the US on the War. I truly hope this will begin some bipartisanship on the War.

Peggy Noonan had a great article today. I pretty much agree with most (if not all) of what she said. Here it is;

http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/pn ... =110009221

Yes yes, even though she was a speechwriter for Reagan she makes some points I think you'd agree on too.

Good stuff and something that echoes what I said earlier.

I agree on the purging of corrupt dems from the Congress. I'm totally sick of all the lying and corruption and will not extend a fig leaf to any guilty politician. I do agree with some points in the article.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:34 pm

dnpmakkah wrote:Bush looks so worn down. I think he knows history will portray him as a failure and his time in office as the 'dark years'.

Every president looks horrible by the time they leave office. Clinton looked terrible by the time he left. . .not because of the controversy in his last 3-4 years in office, but because that job will make anyone lose about 10 years of their life in stress.

ATV · Post by **ATV** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:36 pm

"Every president looks horrible by the time they leave office."

I disagree. I thought Clinton was fine, other than the blow job which the Republicans were determined to capitalize on. That's about all they had. How was Roosevelt doing when he left office? Or Lincoln? You can't tell me this is different because we were a Nation at conflict.

Bush is one of the most, if not THE most, incompetent president in our nation's history. It's that simple.

crazyhorse1 · Post by **crazyhorse1** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:20 am

ATV wrote:"Every president looks horrible by the time they leave office."

I disagree. I thought Clinton was fine, other than the blow job which the Republicans were determined to capitalize on. That's about all they had. How was Roosevelt doing when he left office? Or Lincoln? You can't tell me this is different because we were a Nation at conflict.

Bush is one of the most, if not THE most, incompetent president in our nation's history. It's that simple.

Bush is now at 31 percent approval and 87 percent of Americans think there are grounds for his impeachment. There have been Presidents with lower approval ratings, but I don't think anyone has ever had a higher impeachment percentage. Correct me if I'm wrong.

DESkins · Post by **DESkins** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:39 am

Uh, ATV? Assuming that you mean FDR as "Roosevelt", he looked kinda dead when he left office, as did Lincoln. Same thing could be said about Kennedy, Garfield, McKinley, Taylor, Harrison and Harding. Otherwise, if you look at the photos of the Presidents taken as they entered into the office, and compare that with their pictures as they left office (those that left on their own two feet, that is), it becomes clear that the duties and responsibilities of the office do age them considerably. As far as Bush's perceived incompetence, I'd say that the same thing could be said by anyone of a President with whom you might disagree. I expect that Herbert Hoover's approval rating would have also been abysmally low, as would Andrew Johnson's, just before he was (unsuccessfully) impeached, or Nixon's. I think maybe it would be a better thing to let a little time pass and let history sort out those kinds of labels. Just my opinion, disagree at will.

ATV · Post by **ATV** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:04 am

Assuming that you mean FDR as "Roosevelt", he looked kinda dead when he left office, as did Lincoln.

Of course, I wasn't refering to their physical or emotional appearances (yes, both of these men were thoroughly spent from their personal tragedies, years in office, and illnesses).

dnpmakkah · Post by **dnpmakkah** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:51 pm

There is looking tired then there is looking like you just got your ash handed to you, which is the case with bush.

crazyhorse1 · Post by **crazyhorse1** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:37 pm

thaiphoon wrote:
Bush is toast.

Remains to be seen...

Let the investigations begin.

CH1 - I can't wait for them to begin

Seriously ...

Oh, oh. CIA has just announced that it was authorized to "torture" by Presidential order.

dnpmakkah · Post by **dnpmakkah** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:41 pm

crazyhorse1 wrote:Oh, oh. CIA has just announced that it was authorized to "torture" by Presidential order.

Yep I heard that earlier too. Amazing isn't it? Puzzle pieces of this jigsaw are falling into place. Not like anything is going to come of it but at least it will put into place those who think they are above the law.