NationStates Jolt Archive

Much of the Republican campaign to hold onto power in this Congressional campaign is based on the scare tactic that if the Dems win Congress, they'll immediately launch impeachment proceedings. I know this because some fuckhead a couple of years back signed me up to the Republican party mailing list--someone who used to hang around here, I believe--and I get their emails three and four times a day now.

But here's the thing. Even if that were the case--and it isn't--impeachment proceedings require investigations first, and the past six years has shown that the Bush White House doesn't release documents or testify before Congress if it doesn't feel like it. They gave the 9/11 Commission the finger for a long time, and they told Congressional investigators looking into the intel failures what they would talk about and what they wouldn't.

Now, some of the lack of pushback has been laid at the feet of a compliant Republican congressional leadership, but you might assume that a Speaker Pelosi or Majority Leader Reid wouldn't be so willing to roll over.

So here's the question. Let's say that non-impeachment investigations begin in a Democratically controlled House, and Bush administration documents and staff or Cabinet members are called to testify. Will the Bush White House refuse? And if they do, what happens then?

Holding such trials/investigations would only encourage the terrorists.

Okay, anyone who's not a troll want to join in?

Holding such trials/investigations would only encourage the terrorists.

What are you talking about?

Based on previous experience, I would have to guess that they would absolutely refuse. First, there's the standard claim that questioning their judgment would be viewed as in-fighting and a sign of weakness, thus "emboldening the terrorists". Secondly, they would be completely unwilling to reveal information based on the fact that it would "jeapardize national security" (not saying it wouldn't, that's just the stardard line). So, no - no cooperation. What would happen as a result of this? Nothing would be my guess. Isn't that what always happens?

Well nazz seems the trrorist already picked up on the fact that the best party for THEM is the Democrats...so they have begun an early vote of their own by staging an offensive to influence as much as possible US elections...Hey they learned some stuff and are not stupid...cut and RUN is a GOOD thing from their point of view...:D

So having impeachment procedings DURRING a war MUST sound like an EXCELLENT idea to all of our enemies around the world. It proves that we are as stupid and weak and divided as they like us to be .:D

Holding such trials/investigations would only encourage the terrorists.
And there you have the Bush Admin's response.
Thank you, Karl Rove.

And there you have the Bush Admin's response.
Thank you, Karl Rove.

I'm really hoping people will start to see through that talking-point.

Much of the Republican campaign to hold onto power in this Congressional campaign is based on the scare tactic that if the Dems win Congress, they'll immediately launch impeachment proceedings. I know this because some fuckhead a couple of years back signed me up to the Republican party mailing list--someone who used to hang around here, I believe--and I get their emails three and four times a day now.

But here's the thing. Even if that were the case--and it isn't--impeachment proceedings require investigations first, and the past six years has shown that the Bush White House doesn't release documents or testify before Congress if it doesn't feel like it. They gave the 9/11 Commission the finger for a long time, and they told Congressional investigators looking into the intel failures what they would talk about and what they wouldn't.

Now, some of the lack of pushback has been laid at the feet of a compliant Republican congressional leadership, but you might assume that a Speaker Pelosi or Majority Leader Reid wouldn't be so willing to roll over.

So here's the question. Let's say that non-impeachment investigations begin in a Democratically controlled House, and Bush administration documents and staff or Cabinet members are called to testify. Will the Bush White House refuse? And if they do, what happens then?

Due to the speaker becoming Pelosi and Majority Leader being Reid is precisely why the Democrats won't take hold of the House or the Senate.

What are you talking about?

I believe that MTAE could in no way have been serious.

Although... no, even HE... but... ARGH! *debates conundrum*

There is no requirement for investigations. People like to make out like it is a 'trial' and needs 'evidence', but it's really a political process.

Also, I imagine they articles would be drawn around things like starting a war in Iraq, or lying about WMDs. There is enough already in the public record to do that if the hacks on the hill chose.

Of course we'd be treated to months of waffle about the 'high bar of horseshit' for impeachment and other such tripe, so I don't welcome it.

But it won't happen anyway even if the demicans win. They'll have bigger fish to fry by Q2 '07.

I'm really hoping people will start to see through that talking-point.


What part of it doesn't make sense ? Go ahead you explain it to us .

Due to the speaker becoming Pelosi and Majority Leader being Reid is precisely why the Democrats won't take hold of the House or the Senate.

Hell, of a lot better than Hastert and Frist.

the republican contention that a democratic congress would impeach bush reminds me of the fear amongst white slaveholder that freeing slaves would mean that newly freed black people would turn on the white community in mass slaughter.

just because the republicans impeached clinton on mindbogglingly stupid grounds doesnt mean that the democrats would do the same to bush. there isnt time to get it done and if we learned one thing from the clinton impeachment its that we NEED a president even if we disagree with him.

even if the dems took control of congress, they wouldnt have the votes to remove bush from office. all they could do is go on a self gratifying binge of accusations. i dont think the public would stand for it. it would hurt the democratic party more than anything else they might choose to do.

they dont need bush to show up. if there are charges against him that can be brought to impeachment they dont need him to agree with them. all they need is to be true.

Well nazz seems the trrorist already picked up on the fact that the best party for THEM is the Democrats...so they have begun an early vote of their own by staging an offensive to influence as much as possible US elections...Hey they learned some stuff and are not stupid...cut and RUN is a GOOD thing from their point of view...:D

So having impeachment procedings DURRING a war MUST sound like an EXCELLENT idea to all of our enemies around the world. It proves that we are as stupid and weak and divided as they like us to be .:D
Well some of you prove with your replies that you are stupid and weak.

If that's true that we should never impeach while at war, they shouldn't have impeached Clinton. I don't remember ever hearing that the 'War on Drugs' (tm) had ended, do you?
And that war had/has as much likelihood of success as this one. As well thought out as well.

War was never declared so it's a moot point anyway.



Well, Nazz: How surprised are you that this thread is bringing in the trolls?
Not very, I'd wager.
4 replies, 2 trolls. Great hit ration there.
This thread is well on it's way to winning this years "Most moronic-troll-attracting thread"
Well done, Nazz. Well done. *virtual hearty handshake*

What part of it doesn't make sense ? Go ahead you explain it to us .

I don't think some Jihadi in the Gaza Strip is going to be paying close attention to american politics, Terrorists don't care what party is leading america, its the same "infidels" to them.

What are you talking about?
Don't touch that shit... he's only baiting. There's no substance there.

I don't think some Jihadi in the Gaza Strip is going to be paying close attention to american politics, Terrorists don't care what party is leading america, its the same "infidels" to them.

Tell that to the Jihadis in Bahgdad...they all vote Democrat .:D

the republican contention that a democratic congress would impeach bush reminds me of the fear amongst white slaveholder that freeing slaves would mean that newly freed black people would turn on the white community in mass slaughter.

just because the republicans impeached clinton on mindbogglingly stupid grounds doesnt mean that the democrats would do the same to bush. there isnt time to get it done and if we learned one thing from the clinton impeachment its that we NEED a president even if we disagree with him.

even if the dems took control of congress, they wouldnt have the votes to remove bush from office. all they could do is go on a self gratifying binge of accusations. i dont think the public would stand for it. it would hurt the democratic party more than anything else they might choose to do.

they dont need bush to show up. if there are charges against him that can be brought to impeachment they dont need him to agree with them. all they need is to be true.


Yep a PRESIDENT lying in court under OATH is mind boggling stupid all right and EXCELLENT grounds for impeachment....;)

Yep a PRESIDENT lying in court under OATH is mind boggling stupid all right and EXCELLENT grounds for impeachment....;)

im glad you agree with me that removing a president from office for lying about getting a blowjob (or 8) is mindbgglingly stupid.

especially when compared to the lies told by other presidents who served with less insane congresses.

Holding such trials/investigations would only encourage the terrorists.

Well nazz seems the trrorist already picked up on the fact that the best party for THEM is the Democrats...so they have begun an early vote of their own by staging an offensive to influence as much as possible US elections...Hey they learned some stuff and are not stupid...cut and RUN is a GOOD thing from their point of view...:D

So having impeachment procedings DURRING a war MUST sound like an EXCELLENT idea to all of our enemies around the world. It proves that we are as stupid and weak and divided as they like us to be .:D


I see. Their plan all along was to have us elect officials that would actually investigate other officials and attempt to hold them accountable for breaking the very laws they are sworn to uphold.

Those devious bastards.

Will the Bush White House refuse? And if they do, what happens then?

of course it will.

and it depends on if the dems are willing to face down a full blown constitutional crisis. i mean the situation fairly obviously requires the immediate dissolution of the federal government and just starting from scratch, possibly with a new constitutional convention and everything. i mean really, they should have walked out of congress, declared the current institutions illegitimate, and started a new government ruling from the streets years ago at this point. even tacit collaboration with this government is a grave moral failing.

more likely, they'll just sit tight and pretend to hope that everything will go back to normal in a couple more years - a couple more years of torture, disappearances, mass murder, and bloody stupid imperial adventures.

im glad you agree with me that removing a president from office for lying about getting a blowjob (or 8) is mindbgglingly stupid.

especially when compared to the lies told by other presidents who served with less insane congresses.

I love Clinton and all but LYING under oath in court is a crime . Its called PERJURY ....all us mortals go to jail for it .

Be it about an awsome thing like blowjobs or not.

Much of the Republican campaign to hold onto power in this Congressional campaign is based on the scare tactic that if the Dems win Congress, they'll immediately launch impeachment proceedings. I know this because some fuckhead a couple of years back signed me up to the Republican party mailing list--someone who used to hang around here, I believe--and I get their emails three and four times a day now.

But here's the thing. Even if that were the case--and it isn't--impeachment proceedings require investigations first, and the past six years has shown that the Bush White House doesn't release documents or testify before Congress if it doesn't feel like it. They gave the 9/11 Commission the finger for a long time, and they told Congressional investigators looking into the intel failures what they would talk about and what they wouldn't.

Now, some of the lack of pushback has been laid at the feet of a compliant Republican congressional leadership, but you might assume that a Speaker Pelosi or Majority Leader Reid wouldn't be so willing to roll over.

So here's the question. Let's say that non-impeachment investigations begin in a Democratically controlled House, and Bush administration documents and staff or Cabinet members are called to testify. Will the Bush White House refuse? And if they do, what happens then?



Dude, you talk about them impeaching old Bushy like its a bad thing!

Much of the Republican campaign to hold onto power in this Congressional campaign is based on the scare tactic that if the Dems win Congress, they'll immediately launch impeachment proceedings. I know this because some fuckhead a couple of years back signed me up to the Republican party mailing list--someone who used to hang around here, I believe--and I get their emails three and four times a day now.



So here's the question. Let's say that non-impeachment investigations begin in a Democratically controlled House, and Bush administration documents and staff or Cabinet members are called to testify. Will the Bush White House refuse? And if they do, what happens then?

Heres one way it might work out:
Congessional subpoenas get issued. Bush refuses to give testimony. The investigating committee committee passes a resolution that Bush is guilty of contempt of congress. The House approves the resolution. The resolution is then sent to Alberto Gonzales.

At this point, historically, the exec branch has negotiated a settelment. But what if Gonzales refuses to call a grand jury to indict? Now we have a lovely little constitutional crisis.

Yep a PRESIDENT lying in court under OATH is mind boggling stupid all right and EXCELLENT grounds for impeachment.... ;)

Indeed they are. As are Bush's war crimes.

I love Clinton and all but LYING under oath in court is a crime . Its called PERJURY ....all us mortals go to jail for it

only if you lie under oath about something of material importance to the case.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01748.htm

Impeachment is a silly process anyway.

I love Clinton and all but LYING under oath in court is a crime . Its called PERJURY ....all us mortals go to jail for it .

Be it about an awsome thing like blowjobs or not.

no dear you dont.

perjury is lying about something that is material to the case at hand. getting blowjobs from interns is immaterial to a decade old land deal gone bad

if YOU were being investigated for.... oh lets say bank robbery... and you gave the alibi that you were at work at the time along with your secretary and they asked you if you were having sex and you denied it, you wouldnt go to jail for lying to the cops. if you were innocent of the bank robbery they would never go after you for lying about sex. it would be laughed out of court.

clinton was impeached because of the rabid hatred of the republicans. they impeached him because they COULD not because they SHOULD. the whole country suffered for it.

and to bring it back to the topic of the thread, no matter how much the democrats might hate george bush for his failed policies and the humiliating defeats they have suffered because of him and his party, they shouldnt even consider impeaching him. they might be able to find reasonable grounds (especially if you use the clinton impeachment as a guide) but it would be very bad for the country.

...they shouldn't have impeached Clinton.

They SHOULDN'T have tried to impeach Clinton, but the reasons have nothing to do with some pseudo-War on Drugs. It's really too bad that little bit of horseshit didn't hurt the Republicans as much as an attempt by the Democrats to impeach Bush would hurt that party. Ken Starr should be put on trial as a traitor for miring our nation in that sorry attempt for so long.

Kind of pointless for the Dems to go after Bush now, though, isn't it? Even if they had the position in Congress, the nation is obviously still very Republican, even if the split is close enough to need a tampered election to carry it, and most of the damage that can be done by Cheneyco...I mean Bush and his administration has already been done. If they want to position themselves well for 2008, they need to put their efforts into finding someone who can lead their way out of a paper bag and inspire confidence in a populace consisting of more than just GI Joe action figures.

Dude, you talk about them impeaching old Bushy like its a bad thing!Nah, but as I believe Andaluciae said above, the Dems have bigger fish to fry come the second quarter of '07--that's when the primary findraising campaign gets into full swing. Besides, even if the House impeached, the Senate would never remove, and as my favorite character from The Wire, Omar says, "You come at the king, you best not miss."

Tell that to the Jihadis in Bahgdad...they all vote Democrat .:D
You heard it here first people, fundamentalist Muslims favour gay rights. :rolleyes:

If they want to position themselves well for 2008, they need to put their efforts into finding someone who can lead their way out of a paper bag and inspire confidence in a populace consisting of more than just GI Joe action figures.
If they want to get somewhere, Barak Obama needs to run for president.

Hillary Clinton would not win because as soon as the Republicans got wind of the idea, they would present Rice to foil the feminist vote and simultaneously grab the black vote. Plus, Hillary is New England, and the Democrats have to learn to stop putting stuffy New Englanders up for play.

My prediction is a Democrat loss in 2008, and then an Obama presidency in 2012. Obama 2 terms if he's any good, and then a Republican or HRC.

they would never run rice they wouldnt have to.

no one in america is as polarizing as hillary clinton. The people who want her to run are already voting democrat. so whats the point? you run someone who appeals to the undecided

If they want to get somewhere, Barak Obama needs to run for president.

Hillary Clinton would not win because as soon as the Republicans got wind of the idea, they would present Rice to foil the feminist vote and simultaneously grab the black vote. Plus, Hillary is New England, and the Democrats have to learn to stop putting stuffy New Englanders up for play.

My prediction is a Democrat loss in 2008, and then an Obama presidency in 2012. Obama 2 terms if he's any good, and then a Republican or HRC.

oh katurk....

good thought about obama although i think he needs more time in politics before he is ready to run for president. the dems should win in '08 so maybe '16 is his time or even '20. he is young enough to wait that long if necessary.

i just have to correct you because you have made such a huge error

first of all, new york isnt in new england

secondly, hillary represents new york but she is FROM arkansas.

Rice would never win the Republican primaries in the south, and couldn't pull enough support from anywhere else to make up for it.

perjury is lying about something that is material to the case at hand. getting blowjobs from interns is immaterial to a decade old land deal gone bad

However it was material in Jones v Clinton, and it was that for pejury in that case that Clinton was impeached, found guilty of contempt, and agreed to be disbarred.

oh katurk....

good thought about obama although i think he needs more time in politics before he is ready to run for president. the dems should win in '08 so maybe '16 is his time or even '20. he is young enough to wait that long if necessary.

i just have to correct you because you have made such a huge error

first of all, new york isnt in new england

secondly, hillary represents new york but she is FROM arkansas.
Not to mention that by 2020, in that scenario, Hillary would be about 80 or so. For her, it's this time or nothing, I suspect, but I don't like her chances for the nomination. All she has is money. She's Joe Lieberman in 2002, nowhere to go but down.

I love how a few talking heads say that the current violence in Iraq is partly because of our coming election. I guess they are trying to suggest that insurgensts are being violent so Americans would get upset about what is going on and vote Democrat. Therefor, by voting Democrat you are playing into the terrorists hands!

Makes sense doesn't it? :rolleyes:

i just have to correct you because you have made such a huge error

first of all, new york isnt in new england

secondly, hillary represents new york but she is FROM arkansas.[/QUOTE]

Actually, she was born in Chicago. Attended Wellsley & Yale. Pretty much New England.

And New York is in New England.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.yankeemagazine.com/travel/search/maps/nemap.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.yankeemagazine.com/travel/search/popupstatemap.php&h=475&w=375&sz=17&tbnid=05fJ2BVyt1C7bM:&tbnh=129&tbnw=102&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmap%2Bof%2Bnew%2Bengland&start=3&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=3

Rice would never win the Republican primaries in the south, and couldn't pull enough support from anywhere else to make up for it.

rice isnt a politician and i think its too late to make her one

she is a terrible public speaker (if the bit i see on tv are any indication). she has a voice like that boring history professor in college, the one that you had to fight to keep awake through his class.

plus she will be tarred with the disastrous bush legacy of iraq and afghanistan. she cant get away from it. who would vote for the woman who thought the iraq war was a great idea?

Rice would never win the Republican primaries in the south, and couldn't pull enough support from anywhere else to make up for it.

You sound so convinced about that.

first of all, new york isnt in new england

secondly, hillary represents new york but she is FROM arkansas.
whoops, thanks for the corrections. Though culturally, I at least would clump new york with stuffy new englanders, if only from the point of view of the republican strongholds. I can understand that position being criticised too though.

i'll keep my new information safe until the next time I pull out the same point. Which should be just long enough for everyone to forget this defeat. but i will return...

Rice would never win the Republican primaries in the south, and couldn't pull enough support from anywhere else to make up for it.
I beg to differ. I have had multiple conversations with blacks who believe that Condy is a great politician merely because she has advanced as far as she has despite being black and a woman. Don't underestimate the us-against-them vote.

The US is due for a woman or a black in Office, and the politically correct candidate is in this case Condy.

I beg to differ. I have had multiple conversations with blacks who believe that Condy is a great politician merely because she has advanced as far as she has despite being black and a woman. Don't underestimate the us-against-them vote.

The US is due for a woman or a black in Office, and the politically correct candidate is in this case Condy.

except that she has the millstone of the rest of the Bush admin dragging her down.

Powell is a repub I would vote for. Had he run by himself, I think he would have done great. the only thing that might save him is that he bugged out early. He is still, unfortunately, unelectable.

You sound so convinced about that.

I've lived all but two of my nearly 38 years on this planet in the deep south. I've got reason to be convinced. Hell, Louisiana, one of the more blue southern states, had conservatives either staying home or crossing party lines to vote for Kathleen Blanco for Governor rather than vote for the dark-skinned Bobby Jindal. They were the margin of victory.

Don't get me wrong--I'm not saying that all the south is racist, or even that all southern Republicans are racist. I'm saying that racists make up the Republican margin of victory in a lot of races down there, and racist groups like the C of CC still have a lot of pull. Rice could not win southern primaries, and even if she won the nomination by sweeping everywhere else--unlikely at best--she'd break even at best in the south in the general. She'd be a better general candidate than a primary candidate, that's for certain, because there's the possibility for crossover.

And I didn't even get into the issue of her gender and how that would play in parts of the deep south.

im pretty sure new york is technically a mid atlantic state with new jersey pa and delaware

I beg to differ. I have had multiple conversations with blacks who believe that Condy is a great politician merely because she has advanced as far as she has despite being black and a woman. Don't underestimate the us-against-them vote.

The US is due for a woman or a black in Office, and the politically correct candidate is in this case Condy.

And what percentage of black southern voters vote in the Republican primaries in the south? That's her problem.

except that she has the millstone of the rest of the Bush admin dragging her down.

Powell is a repub I would vote for. Had he run by himself, I think he would have done great. the only thing that might save him is that he bugged out early. He is still, unfortunately, unelectable.
well clearly since the millstone of the bush admin isn't dragging down even the bush admin, i don't think that matters...

And what percentage of black southern voters vote in the Republican primaries in the south? That's her problem.
yeah, well that's true. i suppose it's a question like i originally stated, of the republicans organising to foil the feminist vote of the Dems.

I've lived all but two of my nearly 38 years on this planet in the deep south. I've got reason to be convinced. Hell, Louisiana, one of the more blue southern states, had conservatives either staying home or crossing party lines to vote for Kathleen Blanco for Governor rather than vote for the dark-skinned Bobby Jindal. They were the margin of victory.

Don't get me wrong--I'm not saying that all the south is racist, or even that all southern Republicans are racist. I'm saying that racists make up the Republican margin of victory in a lot of races down there, and racist groups like the C of CC still have a lot of pull. Rice could not win southern primaries, and even if she won the nomination by sweeping everywhere else--unlikely at best--she'd break even at best in the south in the general. She'd be a better general candidate than a primary candidate, that's for certain, because there's the possibility for crossover.

And I didn't even get into the issue of her gender and how that would play in parts of the deep south.

Fair enough. I think it's sad that about the only thing that trumps partisanship in the US is bigotry however.

Doomed I tell you.

well clearly since the millstone of the bush admin isn't dragging down even the bush admin, i don't think that matters...

How is it 'clear'? Elucidate.

Actually, she was born in Chicago.

and grew up in the inner suburbs - park ridge, iirc.

Fair enough. I think it's sad that about the only thing that trumps partisanship in the US is bigotry however.

Doomed I tell you.

It is sad, and frankly, when it comes to national candidates, the Dems aren't terribly better. We've had major candidates of color before--few people remember that in 1988, for a while, Jesse Jackson had more delegates in the primaries than Michael Dukakis--but most of the time the Dems' loudest voices are just as white and male as the Republicans' voices are. At least we've got Obama.

How is it 'clear'? Elucidate.
I just figured this from the fact that Bush legislated his first victory, and won his second fair and square. This in the face of Abu Ghraib, among others. Opinion polls in the US are useless, because when it comes down to it, the vote will always swing towards tax cuts and security. America is too polarised by Political Kombat to take any other issues seriously.

well clearly since the millstone of the bush admin isn't dragging down even the bush admin, i don't think that matters...

Have you checked Republican Congressional poll numbers lately?

won his second fair and square

not so much, actually

not so much, actually

"50.7% of the popular vote, the first presidential candidate since his father George H.W. Bush in 1988 to receive a majority of votes" - Wikipedia.

That sounds fair and square to me. Majority is a majority if you're going to use this kind of ruling.

EDIT: Someone else interpret my brilliance, that these minor figures who dare refute my superior superiority may know of my... superiority, and prove to them once and for all, I AM Supreme Master of zzzzzz.... why yes Mr. Pillow, that DOES sound like a good idea... I lost this point, ciao and good night.

Fear of impeachment and impeachment in general hasn't been an issue here in Minnesota, though I'm sure some would like at least the latter. We've been more focused on who's gonna raise taxes more. Amy says she'll repeal recent tax cuts but won't raise taxes. I have a question: how do you repeal a tax cut without raising taxes?

"50.7% of the popular vote, the first presidential candidate since his father George H.W. Bush in 1988 to receive a majority of votes" - Wikipedia.

That sounds fair and square to me. Majority is a majority if you're going to use this kind of ruling.

sure, except for the highly improbable discrepency between official vote counts and exit polling data across numerous different locations.

Fear of impeachment and impeachment in general hasn't been an issue here in Minnesota, though I'm sure some would like at least the latter. We've been more focused on who's gonna raise taxes more. Amy says she'll repeal recent tax cuts but won't raise taxes. I have a question: how do you repeal a tax cut without raising taxes?

Couple of questions. First, what is she running for? Second, are you sure you quoted her completely? She might be talking about rolling back Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, which would mean that for everyone else, there's no tax increase.

sure, except for the highly improbable discrepency between official vote counts and exit polling data across numerous different locations.
ZOMFG!!!1 IT MUST BE A CONSPIRACY!!!11 (theory that is)

Nazz,
Senate. The same spot Kennedy is going for. The Bush tax cuts weren't just for the wealthy. Capital gains taxes for those currently paying 5% (in this instance, those in the 0% and 15% income tax brackets) are scheduled to be eliminated in 2008. Anyone making over $327,000 is still being taxed at 35%. The Bush tax cuts: they're not just for the wealthy. They're also for poor people.

And they'd better stop being so poor real fast or I'll have to start throwing rocks at them for entertainment.

Holding such trials/investigations would only encourage the terrorists.

I think he was being sarcastic. I hope so anyway.

ZOMFG!!!1 IT MUST BE A CONSPIRACY!!!11 (theory that is)

Nazz,
Senate. The same spot Kennedy is going for. The Bush tax cuts weren't just for the wealthy. Capital gains taxes for those currently paying 5% (in this instance, those in the 0% and 15% income tax brackets) are scheduled to be eliminated in 2008. Anyone making over $327,000 is still being taxed at 35%. The Bush tax cuts: they're not just for the wealthy. They're also for poor people.

And they'd better stop being so poor real fast or I'll have to start throwing rocks at them for entertainment.
Put down the Kool-Aid and slowly back away. The benefit the poor and middle class got from those tax cuts was negligible at best, non-existent for many.

Put down the Kool-Aid and slowly back away. The benefit the poor and middle class got from those tax cuts was negligible at best, non-existent for many.
Where does that whole Kool-Aid metaphore come from and what does it mean exaclty?

Where does that whole Kool-Aid metaphore come from and what does it mean exaclty?
Some cult drank poisoned kool-aid thinking they'd go to heaven or something like that.

Some cult drank poisoned kool-aid thinking they'd go to heaven or something like that.
Is that what it's from? I thought they ate jello...

Is that what it's from? I thought they ate jello...
Differen cults, different methods of mass suicide. Some just take pills.

ZOMFG!!!1 IT MUST BE A CONSPIRACY!!!11 (theory that is)

well, certainly enough to undermine claims of legitimacy in any case.

Wait...looming impeachment proceedings are supposed to convince me not to vote democrat? The republicans may want to rethink their strategy there.

well, certainly enough to undermine claims of legitimacy in any case.
And it couldn't possibly be that someone was manipulating exit polls. That's just crazy talk. It must be a vast right-wing conspiracy. It couldn't possibly be anything else.

And it couldn't possibly be that someone was manipulating exit polls. That's just crazy talk. It must be a vast right-wing conspiracy. It couldn't possibly be anything else.

of the two options, a fraudulent election takes far less coordination from far fewer people and would be much easier to pull off.

sure, except for the highly improbable discrepency between official vote counts and exit polling data across numerous different locations.
Please don't turn this into yet another 'Bush stole the election' threads!
I don't think I could stadn reading thru another one of those.

The Bush tax cuts: they're not just for the wealthy. They're also for poor people.
Then explain this:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42039000/gif/_42039724_family_income_203.gif

Where does that whole Kool-Aid metaphore come from and what does it mean exaclty?
Here ya go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown#Mass_murder.2Fsuicide

Actually it was 'FlavorAid' not 'KoolAid', but eh. same thing.