I wonder if GW's will end up as high as Clinton's. Kinda doubt it.

I truly hope our political process has not fallen into this...impeaching the rival party is not the answer...now if the investigations have merrit I have no problem with them, but if they are simply political ploys aimed at criminalizing the process it is truly a destructive force for our government.

Impeachment was a mistake when Clinton was president, and could be an even bigger mistake now. It's political russian roulette with a lame duck president.

With Clinton though... he did lie under oath during a sexual harrasment suit which led to that impeachment...if Bush has lied under oath they should impeach and throw him in jail. I believe in the rule of law no matter the party, but it could be a deadly game when impeachment is used as political assasination.

Kind of looks like the Dems in both houses should be able to get pretty much of whatever they want. If W wants to be an obstructionist, they can start the investigations.

 

I'm not sure its as easy as you seem to indicate. Many Republicans lost to conservative democrats. Actually, I thinkt the vast majority of Democrats that won new seats are conservative by nature. So, the question of the liberal wing vs the conservative wing and how they will interact has to be considered.

Nice point...heck some of thos dems that won have the potential to be statesmen rather than politicians...they may cross over on some issues. I hope they can simply make some progress up on the hill.

I think the idea of impeaching Bush is nuts.

 

I'll be the first to say that Bush is just this side of your common dolt, but impeachment is unwarranted.

 

 

Frances

I wonder if GW's will end up as high as Clinton's. Kinda doubt it.

 

Not in this lifetime.

 

Frances

So what is your view then on someone making $60,000 and receiving a almost 50% cut in their taxes under GW's tax cut as was indicated in the other thread? It was thrown out over and over that GW's plan was for the wealthy and yet using your own characteristization, it was not for just the wealthy but the middle class.

 

Amazing how there is still no response to this, isn't it?

I'm not sure its as easy as you seem to indicate. Many Republicans lost to conservative democrats. Actually, I thinkt the vast majority of Democrats that won new seats are conservative by nature. So, the question of the liberal wing vs the conservative wing and how they will interact has to be considered.

 

If you look at it, all 27 dems are pro choice, anti Iraq and not all that consertative.

If you look at it, all 27 dems are pro choice, anti Iraq and not all that consertative.

 

While most of the newly elected Democrats are pro-abortion, Heath Shuler of North Carolina, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, Charlie Wilson of Ohio, Chris Carney of Pennsylvania, and Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania are all newly elected to the House of Representatives and at least claim to be pro-life. Pro-life Democratic Congressmen are not quite as rare as they used to be but there still isn't enough of them to be taken off the endangered species list. We'll see how they actually vote in Congress particularly when they're being pressured by the Democratic leadership which is strongly pro-choice.

I'll be the first to say that Bush is just this side of your common dolt, but impeachment is unwarranted.

Why does a smart person like you fall for this baloney?

 

I'm not out to defend Bush as much as I want to point out how a lie repeated long enough and loud enough becomes accepted as truth.

 

A variety of sources have established that Bush's I.Q. falls somewhere in the 125-130 range. That is in the top 10% of the entire population. Not an Einstein or Galileo Galilei perhaps, but far from being a dolt and about 10 I.Q. points above John F. Kennedy.

 

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20000815202310/http:/www.intellectualcapital.com/issues/issue320/item7250.asp

Why does a smart person like you fall for this baloney?

 

I'm not out to defend Bush as much as I want to point out how a lie repeated long enough and loud enough becomes accepted as truth.

 

A variety of sources have established that Bush's I.Q. falls somewhere in the 125-130 range. That is in the top 10% of the entire population. Not an Einstein or Galileo Galilei perhaps, but far from being a dolt and about 10 I.Q. points above John F. Kennedy.

 

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20000815202310/http:/www.intellectualcapital.com/issues/issue320/item7250.asp

 

Yep...that's why were in the mess we're in now. Because Buse is a genuis.

Why does a smart person like you fall for this baloney?

 

I'm not out to defend Bush as much as I want to point out how a lie repeated long enough and loud enough becomes accepted as truth.

A variety of sources have established that Bush's I.Q. falls somewhere in the 125-130 range. That is in the top 10% of the entire population. Not an Einstein or Galileo Galilei perhaps, but far from being a dolt and about 10 I.Q. points above John F. Kennedy.

 

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20000815202310/http:/www.intellectualcapital.com/issues/issue320/item7250.asp

 

Only among the uninformed.

Only among the uninformed.

Or IMO, the misinformed. :thumb: