Minh wrote:

It's an interesting glimpse into the mid-term election, though.

dahat wrote:

American people did not elect representatives in sufficient numbers to remove Bush-43 from office.

Minh wrote:

I don't buy the mid-term election results, either, Dahat.

I think most of those votes against Bush were accidents. They probably intended to go Bush, but somehow tripped & pulled the wrong lever instead.

Please stop dodging the question and answer it if you so firmly believe in what you say: How do you explain the lack of votes in the Senate to convict the President after an impeachment? If the American people think so ill of him, why didn’t they give that tool to the Democrats and enable them to remove him from office once and for all?

Do you think that they are that afraid of Cheney that they dare not remove Bush-43 for fear of the ascension of a greater tyrant? If that was the case and the Democrats had the votes, they could also remove Cheney as well and give Pelosi the top job.

Why didn't they?

Or am I just 'spinning'?

Minh wrote:

I don't hate these:

dahat wrote:



Minh wrote:I don't buy the mid-term election results, either, Dahat. I think most of those votes against Bush were accidents. They probably intended to go Bush, but somehow tripped & pulled the wrong lever instead.

How can you expect to be taken seriously when you take something very logical and simple that I said, and blow it off and make stuff up?

Please stop dodging the question and answer it if you so firmly believe in what you say: How do you explain the lack of votes in the Senate to convict the President after an impeachment? If the American people think so ill of him, why didn’t they give that tool to the Democrats and enable them to remove him from office once and for all?

Do you think that they are that afraid of Cheney that they dare not remove Bush-43 for fear of the ascension of a greater tyrant? If that was the case and the Democrats had the votes, they could also remove Cheney as well and give Pelosi the top job.

Why didn't they?

Or am I just 'spinning'?

dahat wrote:



Minh wrote:I don't hate these:

So you hate Bush and the Irish eh?

dahat wrote:

Do you think that they are that afraid of Cheney that they dare not remove Bush-43 for fear of the ascension of a greater tyrant? If that was the case and the Democrats had the votes, they could also remove Cheney as well and give Pelosi the top job.

Why didn't they?

Or am I just 'spinning'?

NIV wrote:

They raise their voices, they shout for joy;        from the west they acclaim the LORD's majesty.

Minh wrote:

Speaking of dodging, there seems to be a resurgence in popularity of dodge ball here where I live. We even have an outdoor, adult league of dodge ball teams. I might try to get people from work to form a team or something next summer.

Sure, Bush-43 will get his 'comprehensive immigration reform' package which lines up pretty good with the amnesty the Democrats have been fighting for. The Dems will also get their minimum wage increase. Not much more will happen so easily I expect, not until 2008 when there is a chance for a little more shakeup.

First up... remember that I am a Libertarian (neo-Libertarian if you want to get specific) and in the most recent election I ended up voting for more non-Republicans than I did Republicans (what can I say? South Dakota loves its Democrat congresswoman). I have little love for Bush-43 and his refusal to use his veto stamp or spend more and more money (just to name a few things)... but I have come to prefer him over some of the alternatives even though I have never voted for the guy.

As I've said before, I fully expect the Democrats to utterly get trounced in the 2008 elections at the federal level and the Republicans clean up.

Sadly the Libertarians will likely still be sitting off to the side saying "What about us? Don't you guys like us? Oh yea... you don't know who we are."

I am so sure of this, that I am not going to sit here and argue about these things with you and participate in your outright refusal to move beyond this pathetic trolling... instead, I'm going to put my money where my mouth is and see if you will do the same.

If in 2008 the Republicans and Libertarians together do not pickup both the Whitehouse and a majority in the House and Senate (better than 51/49, likely not a supermajority)... I will print every single page of this thread and the previous one, cut them up a bit, pour on some tomato sauce and eat my words with a camera rolling and publish that video online for you, C9 and the world to see.

I have asked honest questions that you've refused to address.

I have made points that you've refused to address.

I am willing to debase myself so totally if I am wrong... can you say the same? Or aren't your convictions that strong?

If they aren't... the please do us all a favor and shut the hell up when it comes to this political trolling. I will mention that if you don't... I will make it a point to remind you and everyone else of how strong my convictions and predictions are in this and how weak yours are.

Fair enough?

Harlequin wrote:

The Senate/Congress can remove a Vice-President at will?

US Constitution, Article II, Section 4 wrote:

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

It does apply to Cabinet officers and Federal judges though.

While such an expulsion is not the same as a removal from office, it effectively means that the body will no longer recognize that individual as a representative.

This is coupled with the ability in *some* states to recall their Congressmen or Senator.

dahat wrote:

I am so sure of this, that I am not going to sit here and argue about these things with you and participate in your outright refusal to move beyond this pathetic trolling... instead, I'm going to put my money where my mouth is and see if you will do the same.

dahat wrote:

If they aren't... the please do us all a favor and shut the hell up when it comes to this political trolling.

dahat wrote:

I will mention that if you don't... I will make it a point to remind you and everyone else of how strong my convictions and predictions are in this and how weak yours are.

Fair enough?

billh wrote:

I'm surprised Charles hasn't locked this thread yet. Is he on vacation again?

SecretSoftware wrote:



billh wrote: I'm surprised Charles hasn't locked this thread yet. Is he on vacation again?

Why do you want it to be locked?

If it is something you like, leave it, but if it is something you dont like, lock it? That sounds un American to me!

dahat wrote:



Minh wrote:I don't buy the mid-term election results, either, Dahat. I think most of those votes against Bush were accidents. They probably intended to go Bush, but somehow tripped & pulled the wrong lever instead.

How can you expect to be taken seriously when you take something very logical and simple that I said, and blow it off and make stuff up?

Please stop dodging the question and answer it if you so firmly believe in what you say: How do you explain the lack of votes in the Senate to convict the President after an impeachment? If the American people think so ill of him, why didn’t they give that tool to the Democrats and enable them to remove him from office once and for all?

Do you think that they are that afraid of Cheney that they dare not remove Bush-43 for fear of the ascension of a greater tyrant? If that was the case and the Democrats had the votes, they could also remove Cheney as well and give Pelosi the top job.

Why didn't they?

Or am I just 'spinning'?

Minh wrote:

An AP/AOL poll asks:

Worse Villain of 2006

Saddam Hussein

6%

Reuters wrote:

"Things have changed in the past three hours. There were some issues ... and now that is resolved so it seems it's possible he may be hanged tonight," the source, who is in a senior position of authority, said after a day of confusion.

Minh wrote:

It's an interesting glimpse into the mid-term election, though.

dahat wrote:

Sadly the Libertarians will likely still be sitting off to the side saying "What about us? Don't you guys like us? Oh yea... you don't know who we are."

jb43081 wrote:



Minh wrote:It's an interesting glimpse into the mid-term election, though.

No, it really isn't. It's just your attempt to be a troll. Mission accomplished.

billh wrote:



Minh wrote:An AP/AOL poll asks: Worse Villain of 2006 Saddam Hussein 6%

Uh, your 6% guy is about to be hanged, thus invalidating this poll.

Saddam may hang within hours: senior Iraqi source

Minh wrote:



dahat wrote: I will mention that if you don't... I will make it a point to remind you and everyone else of how strong my convictions and predictions are in this and how weak yours are. Fair enough?

Knock yourself out. It's a free country. I'll support your right to free speech, even though, you don't support mine.

jb43081 wrote:

I am a Libertarian as well, and I feel that most people really are Libertarian but don't know it, or don't want to be associated with a "losing party."

We need a big star to become an "activist" of the party. I think if people really knew what the platform was about and voted their concious, we would have a Libertarian congress and president.

When I contacted the LP congressional candidate for the at large seat about a lawn sign he lectured me on how he doesn’t take money from special interest groups and therefore can’t afford such things.

Never mind the fact that you, I and virtually every other voter or campaign contributor is by definition a special interest group, it is high time that the party gets off it’s high horse and accept money from as many sources as they can and attach 0 promises to them.

My perverted hope is to win the lottery one of these years and after paying off my student loans, buying a huge plot of land for farming and hunting... use a good chunk of the rest to knock off my congresswoman in the election and actually for once have an LP tv ad, mailings, door pamphlets and a great deal of time driving to city to city talking to people.

The only problem with such a plan is South Dakota rather likes the highway dollars we get and wouldn’t be all that eager to give it up.

Ping wrote:

why US attack Iraq-a country they couldn't find any nuclear weapon?

dahat wrote:



Believe it or not free speech does not mean you can say anything and everything you want when you want and where you want.

ScanIAm wrote:



dahat wrote:  Believe it or not free speech does not mean you can say anything and everything you want when you want and where you want.

Um, yeah it does. 

That's kind of the point.

Apparently your version of free speech isn't so very free.

dahat wrote:



ScanIAm wrote:  dahat wrote:  Believe it or not free speech does not mean you can say anything and everything you want when you want and where you want. Um, yeah it does.  That's kind of the point. Apparently your version of free speech isn't so very free.

So... yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre is free speech?

Expressing your desire for harm to come to someone... like the President is ok?

Outright verbally threatening someone’s safety and/or life is free speech?

Revealing classified information to unauthorized persons is free speech?

Encouraging someone to do physical harm to another is free speech?

While you might say so... the courts have said otherwise for quite some time.

dahat wrote:

So... yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre is free speech?

ScanIAm wrote:

Apparently your version of free speech isn't so very free.

I don't think I was unclear, was I?

Wikipedia wrote:

Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. Criticism of the government and advocation of unpopular ideas that most people would find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, are generally permitted. There are exceptions to the general protection of speech, however, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws and regulation of commercial speech, such as advertising. Other limitations on free speech often balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as property rights for authors and inventors (copyright), interests in fair political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on Hate speech or fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are also often made between speech and other acts, such as flag burning, which may have symbolic significance.

dahat wrote:



ScanIAm wrote: Apparently your version of free speech isn't so very free. I don't think I was unclear, was I?

You weren't as much unclear as you were incorrect.

Like it or not, in the US like almost everywhere else there are a couple of limitations, but don't take my word for it, lets hear what Mr Wikipedia has to say on the subject in the US:

Wikipedia wrote: Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. Criticism of the government and advocation of unpopular ideas that most people would find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, are generally permitted. There are exceptions to the general protection of speech, however, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws and regulation of commercial speech, such as advertising. Other limitations on free speech often balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as property rights for authors and inventors (copyright), interests in fair political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on Hate speech or fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are also often made between speech and other acts, such as flag burning, which may have symbolic significance.

ScanIAm wrote:

In each case, by taking these actions, you are breaking some other law (assault, public endangermenet, etc.).

You certainly CAN yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, but the consequences are that you've endangered others and will likely go to jail.

dahat wrote:

Believe it or not free speech does not mean you can say anything and everything you want when you want and where you want.

Minh wrote:

I'm going to stop by a crowded theater tonight & yell "Fire! Fire!" really loud ... just to make up for the lost of Bill of Rights.

You know... the whole dirty bit of freedom not meaning that you have the right to do anything you want... but instead that in general you have the right to do anything you want so long as doing so does not interfere with the rights of others.

I know it's a difficult concept to understand... but do consider the 'fire' example before you continue your trolling Minh and further demonstrate your unfamiliarity with the issue at hand.

And with that I am done with this thread as one of you inadvertently accepted my original point... while the other seemly only continues here in their desire to troll using their uninformed blind-hatred.

dahat wrote:



And with that I am done with this thread as one of you inadvertently accepted my original point... while the other seemly only continues here in their desire to troll using their uninformed blind-hatred.