Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ben Newsam on 8 Nov 2006 20:47 On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 00:11:51 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >I'm not sure the Democrats should have removed the idea of impeachment quite >frankly. I am sure the right-wing cabal are even now plotting to imbroil the next Democrat president in some kind of scandal and impeach her.
From: Ben Newsam on 8 Nov 2006 20:49 On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:49:27 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ben Newsam wrote: > >> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 10:31:35 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >> wrote: >> >>>C) Taking a high tech biz like Google, what sort >>> of people do they employ, ie, what's the >>> distribution >> >> Mostly commie pinkos I expect. I even thought of applying for a job >> with them myself. Why? > >Typical stupid Brit comment, purposely out of >context too. No doubt the product of a dumbed >down "education" process. Does that mean I was right?
From: unsettled on 8 Nov 2006 21:11 Ben Newsam wrote: > On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:49:27 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> > wrote: > > >>Ben Newsam wrote: >> >> >>>On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 10:31:35 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>>>C) Taking a high tech biz like Google, what sort >>>> of people do they employ, ie, what's the >>>> distribution >>> >>>Mostly commie pinkos I expect. I even thought of applying for a job >>>with them myself. Why? >> >>Typical stupid Brit comment, purposely out of >>context too. No doubt the product of a dumbed >>down "education" process. > Does that mean I was right? Sentence 1, improbable. Sentences 2 and 3 are not subject to my determination of correctness. This is yet another derailment of the discussion which should normally have arisen arise out of my comments. You're entitled to pee all over the newsgroup as you have been doing.
From: lucasea on 8 Nov 2006 22:22 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45525B3A.A3C915E6(a)hotmail.com... > > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> > >> >> Don Rumsfeld, cut from the same inflexible, unthinking and >> >> unlistening, >> >> "my way or the highway" mold, has now stepped aside. >> > >> > Do you think it was his decision entirely or was he nudged or even >> > pushed ? >> >> Oh, I'm quite certain he was pushed. > > I'd like to think so ! > > >> You can see it on Rumsfeld's face. I >> think Bush saw the writing on the wall, that he would probably have to >> let >> Rumsfeld go at some point, and decided to cut bait now while he has a >> remote >> chance of having an even minimally friendly Congress for the new guy's >> confirmation hearings. From what little I've read, however, the new guy >> is >> probably a pretty good choice, given his actual desire and ability to >> work >> with other people, and not think he can run the whole show himself. > > You mean there may yet be some hope for 'consensus politics' ??? > > I'd heard Bush isn't so keen on that. I've been mulling this one over today, and have some further thoughts. One thing to keep in mind is that Bush truly did seem to be keen on it as governor of Texas. He had developed himself a reputation as someone who could bring together diverse political styles and get them to work well together. When he said "I'm a uniter, not a divider" in 2000, from everything I hear, he was not being disingenuous--he was being entirely sincere, based on his experiences as governor of Texas. Something happened to him when he was elected President. I don't know if it was Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or who, but for some reason, around 2000 - 2001 appears to be when he took on a lot of the hard-line "my way or the highway" characteristics that are the hallmark of his Presidency. I think 9/11 had a lot to do with it, and perhaps our fast and decisive success in Afghanistan (even if we didn't completely finish that job the way we should have). I remember a couple weeks after 9/11/01, commenting to someone that I thought Bush had done a fairly effective job handling it, neither making any huge blunders, nor hitting any "home runs". How things after 2002! He may have simply gotten a big head over having responded effectively to 9/11, and began to think he could do no wrong, ever. His re-election and further gains in Congress probably fed that self-perception. I think he got a *huge* dose of humility last night...let's hope he's actually capable of learning something from it. One of the knee-jerk lessons one could take from the past 6 years is never, ever, ever, ever, *ever* elect a President and give his party a majority in both houses of Congress....something about absolute power corrupting absolutely. I'm pretty busy these days, but when I have time, I'm going to correlate the history of the Presidency and Congress, and see if I can find other examples of a President having unfettered support in Congress, and see what the political and governmental results were. If anyone else cares to find and post the results before I time to, I'd be very interested in the results. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 8 Nov 2006 22:35
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45527247.A114D14(a)hotmail.com... > > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Don Rumsfeld, cut from the same inflexible, unthinking and >> >> >> unlistening, "my way or the highway" mold, has now stepped aside. >> >> > >> >> > Do you think it was his decision entirely or was he nudged or even >> >> > pushed ? >> >> >> >> Oh, I'm quite certain he was pushed. >> > >> > I'd like to think so ! >> > >> > >> >> You can see it on Rumsfeld's face. I >> >> think Bush saw the writing on the wall, that he would probably have to >> >> let >> >> Rumsfeld go at some point, and decided to cut bait now while he has a >> >> remote >> >> chance of having an even minimally friendly Congress for the new guy's >> >> confirmation hearings. From what little I've read, however, the new >> >> guy >> >> is >> >> probably a pretty good choice, given his actual desire and ability to >> >> work >> >> with other people, and not think he can run the whole show himself. >> > >> > You mean there may yet be some hope for 'consensus politics' ??? >> > >> > I'd heard Bush isn't so keen on that. >> >> You should follow some of the unfolding events at cnn.com--these are the >> events you will likely not hear anything about in the fullness of time. >> Within hours of news of his victory in 2004, Bush was doing a >> spike-the-ball-in-the-endzone victory dance, and waving it in everybody's >> face. By stark contrast, within hours of news of the Democratic >> victories, >> Nancy Pelosi, who is expected to become probably the most powerful >> Democrat >> in Washington, has said almost nothing publicly, but rather has quietly >> approached Bush and extended her wish to work together with him and to >> compromise. >> >> Tell me....which of those two approaches do you think will end up being >> more >> effective in actually getting things done in Washington? Would that it >> had >> happened 2 years ago (or, while we're dreaming, 6 years ago).... > > That's a no-brainer. > > I'm not sure the Democrats should have removed the idea of impeachment > quite > frankly. While at a gut level I feel the same distress at Bush's job performance, I don't really think it would really be legally justified. Remember, in order to be impeached and have any chance of being convicted and removed from office (in other words, for it not to be simply a waste of Congress's time), the President needs to have committed a crime, and it has to be a felony that had a material, negative effect on his ability to lead the country. Clinton, after all, was accused of having lied to Congress (a crime) and obstruction of justice (a crime). The rub was that I don't personally believe that those crimes rose to the level of significantly disrupting his ability to conduct his job. The biggest disruption was not those crimes, but rather, Congress's reaction to them. Keep in mind, in Bush's case, violating/dismantling the Constitution doesn't constitute a crime in the US. The Constitution is a guiding set principles that tell us how our government should run, it is not a list of laws with punishments for violations. There may very well be laws that codify many of the Constitution's principles (and I believe there are), but the Constitution itself is not a list of laws and punishments for violating them. Eric Lucas |