Let's impeach the president.

[dblanch66]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Thanks. I actually went to his web site. Doesn't look like a serious contender, but you never know.

It's cool that you went to his site, 12th.
Most likely not a serious contender which is a shame. He just probably won't have the money to be viable. However, he is very well spoken, un-rehearsed and sharp. He scared Guliani, who in my opinion is a joke. He won't win. There are too many pictures of him in a dress. hee hee hee.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by saden1

He has the money, the looks, as good of an experience as any governor out there but the whole Mormon thing is going to be a huge drag. Not to mention his flip flopping. I will say this though, the Mormons I know have been upstanding people. The guy who gave me my first real job was Mormon. They do a lot of good things around the world and I do applicate the fact that they go on 2 year missions to places no one else dares to go.

I guess I'm naive but why is it/should it be an issue? For all our world dominance, we sure can be extremely backwards sometimes. Example: We're making a big fuss about a possible female president. All across the world nations have women as their leaders.

[jsarno]

Just curious, but how has this thread not been locked? If someone attacked a democrat, then this would have been closed quickly. But because it's Bush (and apparently politically correct to oppose ANYTHING Bush does) this thread is still allowed to run free?

Either we open up this site for all types of political debate, or none.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Just curious, but how has this thread not been locked? If someone attacked a democrat, then this would have been closed quickly. But because it's Bush (and apparently politically correct to oppose ANYTHING Bush does) this thread is still allowed to run free?

Either we open up this site for all types of political debate, or none.

Things have been pretty civil, why would you want to lock this?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I guess I'm naive but why is it/should it be an issue? For all our world dominance, we sure can be extremely backwards sometimes. Example: We're making a big fuss about a possible female president. All across the world nations have women as their leaders.

Beats me, but if I had to guess I would guess that some Christians are more equal than others. Americans backwards, nooo! I would be really surprised if anyone in here can name 5 female who have been or currently are state leaders without looking it up. Hell, make it simple, just name the nations they led/lead.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Just curious, but how has this thread not been locked? If someone attacked a democrat, then this would have been closed quickly. But because it's Bush (and apparently politically correct to oppose ANYTHING Bush does) this thread is still allowed to run free?

Either we open up this site for all types of political debate, or none.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. I don't care for the unprovoked attacks on Bush that occur quite frequently on this site "Spurrier was a lousy coach...it's like having Bush run the country" Shit like that that has no bearing on the discussion.

In this case/thread, I think it's been a civil discussion. And people here (myself included) have tried to point out that Democrats should not be immune from critique.

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Just curious, but how has this thread not been locked? If someone attacked a democrat, then this would have been closed quickly. But because it's Bush (and apparently politically correct to oppose ANYTHING Bush does) this thread is still allowed to run free?

Either we open up this site for all types of political debate, or none.

You want to slam democrats?!?! Well, lets slam them!!! They are spineless and weak. They have the majority in congress, and the way they got it was by pushing "End the War", "Bring our Troops home", and "We want a timeline..." So, go back a week and the President wants more money to fund the war. Here is the perfect oppertunity for the Democrats to step up and say "NO!!, Unless we get a timeline..." But what do they do? They give in and give the money reguardless. So they basicly go back on what got them in office and the majority. They were too afraid of what the president would say about them if they said "NO", and with the long weekend, they would have had to stay and defend themselves. And why? Why worry about what the president will say because you know what? He still said what he wanted to anyway... So in the end it was a win, win for good ol' GW....

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Redskins8588

You want to slam democrats?!?! Well, lets slam them!!! They are spineless and weak. They have the majority in congress, and the way they got it was by pushing "End the War", "Bring our Troops home", and "We want a timeline..." So, go back a week and the President wants more money to fund the war. Here is the perfect oppertunity for the Democrats to step up and say "NO!!, Unless we get a timeline..." But what do they do? They give in and give the money reguardless. So they basicly go back on what got them in office and the majority. They were too afraid of what the president would say about them if they said "NO", and with the long weekend, they would have had to stay and defend themselves. And why? Why worry about what the president will say because you know what? He still said what he wanted to anyway... So in the end it was a win, win for good ol' GW....

Right on the money. No convictions, no ideas, and much like simple automata. If I were 3 months pregnant with the Democrats I would abort them.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by saden1

Beats me, but if I had to guess I would guess that some Christians are more equal than others. Americans backwards, nooo! I would be really surprised if anyone in here can name 5 female who have been or currently are state leaders without looking it up. Hell, make it simple, just name the nations they led/lead.

Scout's honor off the top of my head:

Margaret Thatcher UK
Indirha Gandhi India
Golda Meier Israel
Benizhir Butto India?
Corazon Aquino The Phillipines
Angela Merkel Germany

That's all I've got.

[Oakland Red]

Dennis Kucinich in the Washington Post on the articles of impeachment he introduced against Dick Cheney:

Kucinich Introduces Impeachment Articles Against Cheney - washingtonpost.com

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Scout's honor off the top of my head:

Margaret Thatcher UK
Indirha Gandhi India
Golda Meier Israel
Benizhir Butto India?
Corazon Aquino The Phillipines
Angela Merkel Germany

That's all I've got.

Bhutto is Pakistan, and to add to that list here are some more woman world leaders:

Michelle Jeria Chile
Helen Clark New Zealand
Tarja Halonen Finland

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by saden1

He has the money, the looks, as good of an experience as any governor out there but the whole Mormon thing is going to be a huge drag. Not to mention his flip flopping. I will say this though, the Mormons I know have been upstanding people. The guy who gave me my first real job was Mormon. They do a lot of good things around the world and I do applicate the fact that they go on 2 year missions to places no one else dares to go.

I agree, no knock on the Mormons at all. I just think when it comes down to it, people will lean toward what they're most familiar with. But I have no doubts that Romney is a stand up guy.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by saden1

Right on the money. No convictions, no ideas, and much like simple automata. If I were 3 months pregnant with the Democrats I would abort them.

Damn that's harsh.

[dblanch66]

Originally Posted by Redskins8588

You want to slam democrats?!?! Well, lets slam them!!! They are spineless and weak. They have the majority in congress, and the way they got it was by pushing "End the War", "Bring our Troops home", and "We want a timeline..." So, go back a week and the President wants more money to fund the war. Here is the perfect oppertunity for the Democrats to step up and say "NO!!, Unless we get a timeline..." But what do they do? They give in and give the money reguardless. So they basicly go back on what got them in office and the majority. They were too afraid of what the president would say about them if they said "NO", and with the long weekend, they would have had to stay and defend themselves. And why? Why worry about what the president will say because you know what? He still said what he wanted to anyway... So in the end it was a win, win for good ol' GW....

Unfortunately, this is true. Which is why I don't classify myself as either elephant or donkey. I just support whoever seems to be the most intelligent, well thought out, well spoken and strong candidate. Guliani...uh...no.
McCain...nutso. Hilary....uh...no. Obama...maybe..jury's still out. Edwards....I like him and he seems to have a plan at least but I just can't see him as president. VP maybe. Which leaves Ron Paul. He is the best candidate and hopefully his campaign will pick up steam.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Redskins8588

You want to slam democrats?!?! Well, lets slam them!!! They are spineless and weak. They have the majority in congress, and the way they got it was by pushing "End the War", "Bring our Troops home", and "We want a timeline..." So, go back a week and the President wants more money to fund the war. Here is the perfect oppertunity for the Democrats to step up and say "NO!!, Unless we get a timeline..." But what do they do? They give in and give the money reguardless. So they basicly go back on what got them in office and the majority. They were too afraid of what the president would say about them if they said "NO", and with the long weekend, they would have had to stay and defend themselves. And why? Why worry about what the president will say because you know what? He still said what he wanted to anyway... So in the end it was a win, win for good ol' GW....

Well it's not just as cut and dry as that. Yes, most Dems voted in favor of continued funding of the War...this time around. Funds run out in September and many expect this to be Bush's last leg if things don't improve. In fact, he has to provide lawmakers with a progress report in July. So in essence, the Repubs bought another four months with the vote.

Another thing, if you look closely at the Bill there were some very important domestic spending provisions that will reach the President's desk which he's expected to sign. Namely an increase in the Federal minimum wage to $7.25/hr, relief money for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery efforts, and a few others.

While it was a setback for the Dems, I think it's very temporary.