Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on March 07, 2007, 08:05:17 AM
-
Nuts. ::)
Vermont Votes to Impeach Bush/Cheney
John Nichols
Wed Mar 7, 7:36 AM ET
The Nation -- When Vermont Governor Jim Douglas, a Republican with reasonably close ties to President Bush, asked if there was any additional business to be considered at the town meeting he was running in Middlebury, Ellen McKay popped up and proposed the impeachment of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
The governor was not amused. As moderator of the annual meeting, he tried to suggest that the proposal to impeach -- along with another proposal to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq -- could not be voted on.
But McKay, a program coordinator at Middlebury College, pressed her case. And it soon became evident that the crowd at the annual meeting shared her desire to hold the president to account.
So Douglas backed down.
"It became clear that no one was going home until they had the chance to discuss the resolutions and vote on them," explained David Rosenberg, a political science professor at Middlebury College. "And being a good politician, he allowed the vote to happen."
By an overwhelming voice vote, Middlebury called for impeachment.
So it has gone this week at town meetings across Vermont, most of which were held Tuesday.
Late Tuesday night, there were confirmed reports that 36 towns had backed impeachment resolutions, and the number was expected to rise.
In one town, Putney, the vote for impeachment was unanimous.
In addition to Governor Douglas's Middlebury, the town of Hartland, which is home to Congressman Peter Welch (news, bio, voting record), backed impeachment. So, too, did Jericho, the home of Gaye Symington, the speaker of the Vermont House of Representatives.
Organizers of the grassroots drive to get town meetings to back impeachment resolutions hope that the overwhelming support the initiative has received will convince Welch to introduce articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney. That's something the Democratic congressman is resisting, even though his predecessor, Bernie Sanders, signed on last year to a proposal by Michigan Congressman John Conyers (news, bio, voting record) to set up a House committee to look into impeachment.
Vermont activists also want their legislature to approve articles of impeachment and forward them to Congress. But Symington, also a Democrat, has discouraged the initiative, despite the fact that more than 20 representatives have cosponsored an impeachment resolution.
"It's going to be hard for Peter Welch and Gaye Symington to say there's no sentiment for impeachment, now that their own towns have voted for it," says Dan DeWalt, a Newfane, Vermont, town selectman who started the impeachment initiative last year in his town, and who now plans to launch a campaign to pressure Welch and Symington to respect and reflect the will of the people.
It is going to be even harder for Governor Douglas, who just this month spent two nights at the Bush White House, to face his president.
After all, Douglas now lives in a town that is on record in support of Bush's impeachment and trial for high crimes and misdemeanors.
For the record, Middlebury says:
We the people have the power -- and the responsibility -- to remove executives who transgress not just the law, but the rule of law.
The oaths that the President and Vice President take binds them to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." The failure to do so forms a sound basis for articles of impeachment.
The President and Vice President have failed to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" in the following ways:
1. They have manipulated intelligence and misled the country to justify an immoral, unjust, and unnecessary preemptive war in Iraq.
2. They have directed the government to engage in domestic spying without warrants, in direct contravention of U.S. law.
3. They have conspired to commit the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Federal Torture Act and the Geneva Convention.
4. They have ordered the indefinite detention without legal counsel, without charges and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention -- all in violation of U.S. law and the Bill of Rights.
When strong evidence exists of the most serious crimes, we must use impeachment -- or lose the ability of the legislative branch to compel the executive branch to obey the law.
George Bush has led our country to a constitutional crisis, and it is our responsibility to remove him from office.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070307/cm_thenation/1172344;_ylt=Ap4l.wIJTvGAHRaQgcB.ByMDW7oF
-
Nuts. ::)
Thirty-six American towns wish to impeach bush.
What happens when it's 3,600?
36,000?
Face it dude, being labeled "nuts" is only possible when you're a small minority. When 95% of cities and towns and counties and states vote to impeach, Congress will respond to keep their jobs, and act. Then, suddenly that remaining 5% will be the "nuts".
-
LOL..Vermont, arn't they like 90% Liberal??
-
Thirty-six American towns wish to impeach bush.
What happens when it's 3,600?
36,000?
Face it dude, being labeled "nuts" is only possible when you're a small minority. When 95% of cities and towns and counties and states vote to impeach, Congress will respond to keep their jobs, and act. Then, suddenly that remaining 5% will be the "nuts".
Yeah but you get like 5 people at town meetings and they are the nuts anyway. So even if 4 out of 5 vote to impeach does that reflect the whole town?
-
Thirty-six American towns wish to impeach bush.
What happens when it's 3,600?
36,000?
Face it dude, being labeled "nuts" is only possible when you're a small minority. When 95% of cities and towns and counties and states vote to impeach, Congress will respond to keep their jobs, and act. Then, suddenly that remaining 5% will be the "nuts".
As I said right after the Democrats took control of Congress last year, impeachment will be relegated to internet message boards. There is no basis for impeachment and the Democrats in Congress won't be stupid enough to pursue this dumb issue with such an important election right around the corner.
And yes they are nuts.
-
LOL..Vermont, arn't they like 90% Liberal??
You've got a pretty well-educated population there in Vermont, my friend.
-
You've got a pretty well-educated population there in Vermont, my friend.
um yeah right, that place is like the north's version of west virginia
-
Yeah but you get like 5 people at town meetings and they are the nuts anyway.
Keeping up on what goes on in your local Government really makes you a nut.
You are a moron if you believe that.
-
As I said right after the Democrats took control of Congress last year, impeachment will be relegated to internet message boards.
You just posted an article showing 36 towns (which as you may know are "non-internet message board entities") who have voted for impeachment.
Starting this thread directly disproved your theory. Was that your intention? Or an unintended consequence?
-
This thread shows something else, which is becoming a common theme here.
THe original article listed the reasons these towns voted to impeach Bush. In the academic and legal world, this information is used to determine if the issue is valid.
Here in internet neotaint fantasyland, you cats ignore this. You make fun of the people instead. It's akin to a defense attorney making fun of the prosecutor's shoes, haircut, and ugly ass children instead of defending his client.
Beach bum, mm69, and mr I:
I challenge you guys to prove all 4 of these points to be wrong:
1. They have manipulated intelligence and misled the country to justify an immoral, unjust, and unnecessary preemptive war in Iraq.
2. They have directed the government to engage in domestic spying without warrants, in direct contravention of U.S. law.
3. They have conspired to commit the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Federal Torture Act and the Geneva Convention.
4. They have ordered the indefinite detention without legal counsel, without charges and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention -- all in violation of U.S. law and the Bill of Rights.
If you do so, you will show these vermont towns to be "nuts", or more accurately, ignorant of the law. If you do not, then guess what... you've just been politically outgunned by "4 or 5 local liberal nuts from the NE's verrrginia".
Do as you wish. Until you prove #1-4 are wrong, you are sub-nut in the eyes of getbig.
-
Didn't some place in Utah do the same thing recently? This is meaningless. You might as well take an impeachment vote at the local high school.
-
Excellent!
I especially like MM69 Calling people nuts for taking part in there government. ::)
Our founding fathers must have been nuts in his eyes.
-
Didn't some place in Utah do the same thing recently? This is meaningless. You might as well take an impeachment vote at the local high school.
No, thats what I thought.
Let me find some info but Impeachment proceedings can actually start at the state level.
-
They have conspired to commit the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Federal Torture Act and the Geneva Convention.
It's newsletter only, so I don't have any details, but the fiery leftists over at Counterpunch.org are saying Rumsfeld not only authorized the torture - he micro-managed it.
-
You just posted an article showing 36 towns (which as you may know are "non-internet message board entities") who have voted for impeachment.
Starting this thread directly disproved your theory. Was that your intention? Or an unintended consequence?
Let me clarify what I mean. This impeachment nonsense will never see the light of day in Congress. That was and remains my prediction. The fact that a comparatively small number of people voted on impeaching the president doesn't make a hill of beans difference to me or the country in general. There could in fact be several "resolutions" passed by segments of the population. I view these absurd acts as indistinguishable from the impeachment drivel on internet message boards.
-
This impeachment nonsense
Instead of calling it nonsense would you please address some of 240's questions?
I challenge you guys to prove all 4 of these points to be wrong:[/b]
1. They have manipulated intelligence and misled the country to justify an immoral, unjust, and unnecessary preemptive war in Iraq.
2. They have directed the government to engage in domestic spying without warrants, in direct contravention of U.S. law.
3. They have conspired to commit the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Federal Torture Act and the Geneva Convention.
4. They have ordered the indefinite detention without legal counsel, without charges and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention -- all in violation of U.S. law and the Bill of Rights.
-
This thread shows something else, which is becoming a common theme here.
THe original article listed the reasons these towns voted to impeach Bush. In the academic and legal world, this information is used to determine if the issue is valid.
Here in internet neotaint fantasyland, you cats ignore this. You make fun of the people instead. It's akin to a defense attorney making fun of the prosecutor's shoes, haircut, and ugly ass children instead of defending his client.
Beach bum, mm69, and mr I:
I challenge you guys to prove all 4 of these points to be wrong:
1. They have manipulated intelligence and misled the country to justify an immoral, unjust, and unnecessary preemptive war in Iraq.
2. They have directed the government to engage in domestic spying without warrants, in direct contravention of U.S. law.
3. They have conspired to commit the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Federal Torture Act and the Geneva Convention.
4. They have ordered the indefinite detention without legal counsel, without charges and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention -- all in violation of U.S. law and the Bill of Rights.
If you do so, you will show these vermont towns to be "nuts", or more accurately, ignorant of the law. If you do not, then guess what... you've just been politically outgunned by "4 or 5 local liberal nuts from the NE's verrrginia".
Do as you wish. Until you prove #1-4 are wrong, you are sub-nut in the eyes of getbig.
Oh brother. I know I'm going to regret this, but:
1. Congress endorsed the war after it started.
2. Bush acted on the advice of counsel, like presidents before him, was checked by the judiciary, and is now operating under a new law. Didn't Clinton do the same thing? Also, I am not certain the order to do warrantless wiretaps came directly from Bush.
3. Which specific prisoners are you talking about and what specific provisions of the "Federal Torture Act" and the "Geneva Convention" are you referring to? Also, what role did President Bush play?
4. Who exactly are you referring to and precisely what was President Bush's involvement?
-
Instead of calling it nonsense would you please address some of 240's questions?
I just did. Not that it will matter to you or anyone who has their mind made up about this nonsense. It's really silly. If there was anything to this impeachment stuff, Congress would be all over it. There is nothing there. There will be no impeachment. There will be no impeachment investigation. There will be no impeachment hearings.
But I'm happy to engage in these hypothetical discussions about this non-issue. :)
-
I view these absurd acts as indistinguishable from the impeachment drivel on internet message boards.
Not entirely.
These people are pissed off enough that they're actually leaving their homes and standing up in public to say that they want something done. That demonstrates a meaningfully higher level of commitment than keyboard warriors such as myself. :)
You're right of course that the immediate political consequence of this is zero.
But to quote my favorite movie: "Big things have small beginnings."
-
Let me clarify what I mean. This impeachment nonsense will never see the light of day in Congress. That was and remains my prediction. The fact that a comparatively small number of people voted on impeaching the president doesn't make a hill of beans difference to me or the country in general. There could in fact be several "resolutions" passed by segments of the population. I view these absurd acts as indistinguishable from the impeachment drivel on internet message boards.
Beach Bum,
If every city and town in every state in the US was to vote to impeach Bush, something interesting would happen:
People running for congress in 2008 - and those who wished to keep their job in 2008 - would realize that supporting such legislation would result in them being re-elected. And criticizing it would mean that some upstart Obama-like geek who supports it, would take his job in 08.
This is precisely what happened with the Iraqi war. The majority of the population was against the war. Their representatives refused to do anything to stop the war. So, they chose to vote these people out of office. The lesson is fresh in the minds of many who are now looking for a job.
So yes, Beach Bum, today it is 36 towns. Might be zero more. Might be 10,000 more. But when the majority of cities do it, state congresses will immediately do it, and nat'l Congress will follow suit. This is how democracy works - very slowly.
-
Not entirely.
These people are pissed off enough that they're actually leaving their homes and standing up in public to say that they want something done. That demonstrates a meaningfully higher level of commitment than keyboard warriors such as myself. :)
You're right of course that the immediate political consequence of this is zero.
But to quote my favorite movie: "Big things have small beginnings."
Well we actually agree . . . a little. :)
-
Beach, when you were asked to dispute this:
1. They have manipulated intelligence and misled the country to justify an immoral, unjust, and unnecessary preemptive war in Iraq.
You delivered this:
1. Congress endorsed the war after it started.
It sounds like you didn't even read it. The charge is that the Bush Admin manipulated intel. It was recently confirmed by the Pentagon audit team that yes, Intel was clearly manipulated by Douglass Feith, working directly under Rumsfeld, a Bush appointee, and that this Intel was the specific info given to congress for decision making - not the greater number of sources showing the WMD threat was not real.
Your answer, "Congress endorsed the war after it started.", makes zero sense to me. It has nothing to do with the now-proven fact that Bush manipulated and gave the nation bad info to serve his purpose.
I have already accepted the fact you lied here about being a university professor. However after reading your response I am now wondering if you could pass a 6th grade reading comprehension test. Do you want to revise your answer #1, or shall we move on to #2?
-
Beach Bum,
If every city and town in every state in the US was to vote to impeach Bush, something interesting would happen:
People running for congress in 2008 - and those who wished to keep their job in 2008 - would realize that supporting such legislation would result in them being re-elected. And criticizing it would mean that some upstart Obama-like geek who supports it, would take his job in 08.
This is precisely what happened with the Iraqi war. The majority of the population was against the war. Their representatives refused to do anything to stop the war. So, they chose to vote these people out of office. The lesson is fresh in the minds of many who are now looking for a job.
So yes, Beach Bum, today it is 36 towns. Might be zero more. Might be 10,000 more. But when the majority of cities do it, state congresses will immediately do it, and nat'l Congress will follow suit. This is how democracy works - very slowly.
O.K. Wake me when every city and every town in America does what a handful of dummies in Vermont just did.
I view this as nothing more (actually much less) than the impeachment of President Clinton. It is a waste of our time and my money.
Keep in mind the standard for impeachment is "high crimes and misdemeanors." It's not a policy disagreement, mistake, error in judgment, etc.
-
O.K. Wake me when every city and every town in America does what a handful of dummies in Vermont just did.
I view this as nothing more (actually much less) than the impeachment of President Clinton. It is a waste of our time and my money.
Keep in mind the standard for impeachment is "high crimes and misdemeanors." It's not a policy disagreement, mistake, error in judgment, etc.
Beach Bum,
You know what's funny - whether an idea is considered brilliant/true, or retarded/nutty is not based upon its accuracy. It's based upon the perception of the large group to which this idea is presented.
When Copernicus introduced the idea that the Earth orbited the sun, he was considered nutty. Not because of the accuracy of his statement (which it obvously was), but because 99.999% of the population didn't believe it. The idea moved from "nutty" to "science" when other evidence came to light, and suddenly 99% of people believed him.
If 1% of America wanted GWB impeached, the idea is nutty.
If 99% of American wants GWB impeached, the idea is viable, likely, popular, and yes, no longer nutty.
Except to that 1% of people, which might include you. The question is, when 297 million people suddenly think you are crazy for your idea... you are. ;)
-
Beach Bum,
You know what's funny - whether an idea is considered brilliant/true, or retarded/nutty is not based upon its accuracy. It's based upon the perception of the large group to which this idea is presented.
When Copernicus introduced the idea that the Earth orbited the sun, he was considered nutty. Not because of the accuracy of his statement (which it obvously was), but because 99.999% of the population didn't believe it. The idea moved from "nutty" to "science" when other evidence came to light, and suddenly 99% of people believed him.
If 1% of America wanted GWB impeached, the idea is nutty.
If 99% of American wants GWB impeached, the idea is viable, likely, popular, and yes, no longer nutty.
Except to that 1% of people, which might include you. The question is, when 297 million people suddenly think you are crazy for your idea... you are. ;)
I am with you brother! I mean just look at how NASA has deceived the world about the faked moon landing. Even though you are one of the few people on the planet who believes in this conspiracy, one day the truth will be revealed to the masses. The truth will set us free. Don't give up the fight dude!
-
Ok you guys, I know the hate runs deep, just try to not let it disolve into personal insults. Beach knows that it was my favorite thing to do when we started this forum and I was often guilty of it but I think most have seen the harsh insults from me slow to a trickle. Not easy to do I know. It gets heated and it's easy to jump into talking trash about someone's wife or something. If I'm trying to work on it, you all have to too ;D Ok, points deducted, FIGHT! :P
-
I agree!
No need to attack people personally. Just makes you look like a moron.
-
Just the title of this thread alone is making me horny! ;D
-
Ok you guys, I know the hate runs deep, just try to not let it disolve into personal insults. Beach knows that it was my favorite thing to do when we started this forum and I was often guilty of it but I think most have seen the harsh insults from me slow to a trickle. Not easy to do I know. It gets heated and it's easy to jump into talking trash about someone's wife or something. If I'm trying to work on it, you all have to too ;D Ok, points deducted, FIGHT! :P
Hate? Just so we're clear, I view my exchanges with 240 in a lighthearted manner. I think that should be pretty clear to most people who read them. I think he is absolutely serious, but my responses are not (about 90 percent of the time), which makes them that much more comical to me. I have tried the substantive exchanges, but they just don't work to well with him. And my comments, whatever they are, are in response to him (about 99 percent of the time).
Just trying to say there is no "hate" or anything like that from me. I don't take any of this stuff personally.
-
Berserker has a neat little sig. I think it's time Beach Bum got one too... therefore I propose:
"How the **ck did a troll like you get to be moderator?"
Kinda snazzy don't you think? :D
-
Berserker has a neat little sig. I think it's time Beach Bum got one too... therefore I propose:
"How the **ck did a troll like you get to be moderator?"
Kinda snazzy don't you think? :D
lol. Hey I could use that for a number of things I'm involved in. :D
-
Keep in mind the standard for impeachment is "high crimes and misdemeanors."
How many American kids have to be killed before the crime is considered 'high'?
-
Ok you guys, I know the hate runs deep, just try to not let it disolve into personal insults. Beach knows that it was my favorite thing to do when we started this forum and I was often guilty of it but I think most have seen the harsh insults from me slow to a trickle. Not easy to do I know. It gets heated and it's easy to jump into talking trash about someone's wife or something. If I'm trying to work on it, you all have to too ;D Ok, points deducted, FIGHT! :P
I know there are idiots here.
I know this, because their mamas and daddies were idiots and that's how they were raised.
-
How many American kids have to be killed before the crime is considered 'high'?
Our men and women are being killed by insurgents, not the president. If those who advocate impeachment believe the decision to go to war is a "high crime or misdemeanor," I don't think it flies. There was too much Congressional involvement, both before and after Bush took office, and before and after we invaded, for Congress to now step in and claim Bush "lied." Congress has their hands all over this war. Then there is the involvement of the UN and the many other nations who have been fighting along with the U.S. in Iraq. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work.
-
How many American kids have to be killed before the crime is considered 'high'?
It's not a crime if they volunteer to go over and die.
-
It's not a crime if they volunteer to go over and die.
It is when they wouldn't have volunteered had they not been lied to to begin with.
In many cases, their decisions to volunteer, wasn't based on 'innaccurate' info, but deliberately 'falsified' info
-
It is when they wouldn't have volunteered had they not been lied to to begin with.
In many cases, their decisions to volunteer, wasn't based on 'innaccurate' info, but deliberately 'falsified' info
Jag you are such an idiot
-
Jag you are such an idiot
Coming from you, ...I take that as rather a compliment. Thank you. :)
-
The Vermont dummies at it again. I would be embarrassed to live there. :-\ The "Vermont AG says move is 'of very dubious legality.'" No kidding. ::)
Activists in Vermont town want Bush, Cheney subject to arrest
MONTPELIER, Vermont (AP) -- President Bush may soon have a new reason to avoid left-leaning Vermont: In one town, activists want him subject to arrest for war crimes.
Kurt Daims of Brattleboro, Vermont, speaks Friday about his movement against Bush and Cheney.
A group in Brattleboro is petitioning to put an item on a town meeting agenda in March that would make Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney subject to arrest and indictment if they visit the southeastern Vermont community.
"This petition is as radical as the Declaration of Independence, and it draws on that tradition in claiming a universal jurisdiction when governments fail to do what they're supposed to do," said Kurt Daims, 54, a retired machinist leading the drive.
As president, Bush has visited every state except Vermont. [lol :D]
The town meeting, an annual exercise in which residents gather to vote on everything from fire department budgets to municipal policy, requires about 1,000 signatures to place a binding item on the agenda.
The measure asks: "Shall the Selectboard instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution, and publish said indictment for consideration by other municipalities?"
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday. The press office did not immediately respond to an e-mail.
Support for the measure is far from universal, even in Vermont, where the state Senate voted earlier this year to support impeaching the president. Anti-war rallies are regular occurrences here, and "Impeach Bush" bumper stickers are common.
"I would not be supportive of it," said Stephen Steidle, a member of the town's Selectboard, which oversees its government.
"It's well outside of our ability. From my perspective, the Brattleboro Selectboard needs to focus on the town and the things that need to be done here."
Daims has been circulating documents that claim the community acquires a "universal jurisdiction" to take such steps "when governments breach their highest duties."
"We have the full power to issue indictments, conduct trials, incarcerate offenders and do all other acts which Independent jurisdictions may of right do," the statement says.
Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, a Democrat whose office has repeatedly sued the Bush administration over environmental issues, said the move was "of very dubious legality."
"I have not seen the proposal, and I've done no legal research on any of the issues," Sorrell said. "But at first blush, if this passed, they'd have really uphill sledding trying to have it be legal and enforceable."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html
-
Not a Bush fan but I would LOVE to see the Vermont libs try to arrest Bush or Cheney.
Then we would see which Secret Service agents have been putting in their time on the shooting range. ;D
-
Not a Bush fan but I would LOVE to see the Vermont libs try to arrest Bush or Cheney.
Then we would see which Secret Service agents have been putting in their time on the shooting range. ;D
wow, long time no see.
-
Not a Bush fan but I would LOVE to see the Vermont libs try to arrest Bush or Cheney.
Then we would see which Secret Service agents have been putting in their time on the shooting range. ;D
Bush = worst president in a long time.
Bring back Clinton!!! (not Hilary)
-
Bush = worst president in a long time.
Bring back Clinton!!! (not Hilary)
He's scum too.
Clone Regan.
-
He's scum too.
Clone Regan.
who the hell is regan?
-
He's scum too.
Clone Regan.
Clinton Left office with a budget surplus...EVERYONE had a job.....gas was $1.28 a gallon or something like that...the nineties were great.
-
Reagan
Clone REAGAN
-
Clinton Left office with a budget surplus...EVERYONE had a job.....gas was $1.28 a gallon or something like that...the nineties were great.
Just buy stock in Exxon ;)
-
Clinton Left office with a budget surplus...EVERYONE had a job.....gas was $1.28 a gallon or something like that...the nineties were great.
I'm better off now than I was under Clinton's watch.
We were not at war when he was President.
The budget surplus was due to Congress controlling the budget.
-
I'm better off now than I was under Clinton's watch.
We were not at war when he was President.
The budget surplus was due to Congress controlling the budget.
repubs controlled the congress from 00 to 06.
Why did they turn a surplus into a deficit?
-
repubs controlled the congress from 00 to 06.
Why did they turn a surplus into a deficit?
Bush announced we would run a deficit for a time. It is the price we pay for fighting the war on terror.
-
repubs controlled the congress from 00 to 06.
Why did they turn a surplus into a deficit?
I think there are many reasons.
Republicans make poor Democrats.
Bush is NOT a conservative - he's a Southern Democrat.
We're at war.
I'm disgusted with the whole scene. Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin.
All this would make Ronald Reagan a sad panda.
-
I think there are many reasons.
Republicans make poor Democrats.
Bush is NOT a conservative - he's a Southern Democrat.
We're at war.
I'm disgusted with the whole scene. Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin.
All this would make Ronald Reagan a sad panda.
shut up and train ;D
-
shut up and train ;D
LOL
-
LOL
holy crap, it took you 2 seconds to change that avatar :P
-
I'm better off now than I was under Clinton's watch.
We were not at war when he was President.
The budget surplus was due to Congress controlling the budget.
When he was in office every factory around was always looking for help. We had more work than we could handle. Since then the plant I worked at is now gone (it had been there since 1932) almost 1000 people lost their jobs and were forced to start over. Some of our work went to other plants in the USA but most went to Mexico. I don't know whos fault that is but all I know is the way things were from when I finished Highschool in 1992 to when Clinton left office were better around here than they have been the last few years.
When republicans are in office it seems like the white collar people get richer and the blue collar worker gets poorer... But at the same time I hate most democrats too. They cater too much to the free loaders and welfare moms( Clinton probably did too)...there needs to be a happy middle somewhere.
The only thing that got better around here is our Football team. ;D
-
When he was in office every factory around was always looking for help. We had more work than we could handle. Since then the plant I worked at is now gone (it had been there since 1932) almost 1000 people lost their jobs and were forced to start over. Some of our work went to other plants in the USA but most went to Mexico. I don't know whos fault that is but all I know is the way things were from when I finished Highschool in 1992 to when Clinton left office were better around here than they have been the last few years.
When republicans are in office it seems like the white collar people get richer and the blue collar worker gets poorer... But at the same time I hate most democrats too. They cater too much to the free loaders and welfare moms( Clinton probably did too)...there needs to be a happy middle somewhere.
The only thing that got better around here is our Football team. ;D
Things improved here quite a bit since 2000, but I attribute much of that to Republican Governor Linda Lingle.
-
When he was in office every factory around was always looking for help. We had more work than we could handle. Since then the plant I worked at is now gone (it had been there since 1932) almost 1000 people lost their jobs and were forced to start over. Some of our work went to other plants in the USA but most went to Mexico. I don't know whos fault that is but all I know is the way things were from when I finished Highschool in 1992 to when Clinton left office were better around here than they have been the last few years.
When republicans are in office it seems like the white collar people get richer and the blue collar worker gets poorer... But at the same time I hate most democrats too. They cater too much to the free loaders and welfare moms( Clinton probably did too)...there needs to be a happy middle somewhere.
The only thing that got better around here is our Football team. ;D
Welcome to the global economy.
The country is run by bankers, we print more and more money that is worthless, and we are slowly losing our sovereignty.
If anyone were to ask me if I'm better off today than I was 8 years ago that'd would be a HELL YES.
The last thing I want is another liberal in the White House raising taxes and compromising national security. The Republicans really are not that much better but unfortunately it's the lesser of two evils.