Kerry to Call for IMPEACHMENT

[Joe_Weider]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, I’m inclined to agree. If they try and fail miserably, it would be an incredibly stupid thing to have done.

If they are going to do this, they’d better have a lot more in their pocket than this memo. I wonder if they realize this and if so I wonder what it is they think they might have.[/quote]

vroom–seriously:
I don’t believe they think they need more than this. They’re stuck in the days when they had a monopoly on the media, and could pretty much shove anything down the throats of Americans.

[ZEB]

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
vroom wrote:
Rainjack, I’m inclined to agree. If they try and fail miserably, it would be an incredibly stupid thing to have done.

If they are going to do this, they’d better have a lot more in their pocket than this memo. I wonder if they realize this and if so I wonder what it is they think they might have.

vroom–seriously:
I don’t believe they think they need more than this. They’re stuck in the days when they had a monopoly on the media, and could pretty much shove anything down the throats of Americans.
[/quote]

Excellent point Joe!

The days of the talking heads as the mouth piece for the liberal wing of the democratic party are over.

Now they actually have to have some real quantifiable eveidence in order to sidetrack the republican party.

By the way no one has mentioned it yet, but I think that we are in the middle of the most scrupulous administration of either party in a very long time!

Think about all of the scandals that took place in previous administrations. There simply not going on under President Bush.

[vroom]

Joe, Zeb,

I know that neither of you has much respect for “liberals” or the democratic party, but do you really think they are that stupid?

I mean, we’ll find out whether or not you are right shortly, I am certainly not claiming to know!

I’m not trying to criticize your viewpoints at all, it just seems astounding to me to reject a party that represents nearly half the population so casually.

[sasquatch]

[quote]vroom wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Can you discuss without resorting to BS.

There is no statememnt directly or indirectly from Pres. Bush that validates this paper. Even in the original link from the other source it was tempered with the question of repudiation of the source of this document, as well as the validity of the publication that ran with it.

Please vroom, I understand my conclusion could differ from others, but have your facts in order should you choose to discuss. How can you intelligently discuss something you haven’t even read? It just happens to support your stance so you want to give it credence before evaluating it on your own. I’ve evaluated it and give it quite little. You are welcome to your own.

Is this the memo I haven’t read?

The Times & The Sunday Times

I haven’t given it any credence at all at this point. It is suggestive, but I said I’d be surprised if it was the only thing in hand if Kerry was really going to try for impeachment. If there are other things, then it would become one piece of evidence amongst those others.

That isn’t clear, simple and evident?

Of course the Bush administration would never validate the paper. Do you live in Bizarro world? Do you think the president or the administration would admit to doing something like this if it was actually done? That would be like expecting Clinton to own up to getting blowjobs voluntarily.

Where is this BS you refer to? How the heck have I done anything to take a stance other than wait and see? You are really very amusing – if I claimed it was too hot outside you’d tell me it was too cold.

–

Joe, I can always trust you to jump in with a slam even if it isn’t deserved. Thanks.[/quote]

Same old stuff. You make your claim based on the assumption that they have more than what they’ve offered. Duh!

All we can discuss at the given time is what they have brought forward as possible info worthy of impeachment. I simply said this document is hardly evidence and certainly not enough for impeachment. Then the great vroom machine took off into the what if world once again. Don’t remember. Go back and reread your post to me and the RJ. What a bunch of maybe, what if, have you looked at this possibility vroom.

this doc. is hardly ‘suggestive’ taken into context its origin and publicator. No smoking gun here.

Accusing me of living in Bizarro world is simply another attempted distraction because you simply can’t argue on topic. You always sink. And the Nixon tapes would suggest that in the past people have discussed their wrong doing. Please come back with something better than random attacks and what ifs.

As for the weather. 85 and sunny. Got the grill going and playing in the pool.

[Joe_Weider]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Joe, Zeb,

I know that neither of you has much respect for “liberals” or the democratic party, but do you really think they are that stupid?

I mean, we’ll find out whether or not you are right shortly, I am certainly not claiming to know!

I’m not trying to criticize your viewpoints at all, it just seems astounding to me to reject a party that represents nearly half the population so casually.[/quote]

vroom:
Yes, actually. The liberals that have taken over the Democrat party? Yeah.
Reid, Pelosi, Dean, Kerry etc?
Yeah.

Rank and file? Not so much.

And I’m willing to bet a bunch of Kerry support–and Mikey Moore alluded to it–was based on anyone but Bush, not support for any sort of coherent and cohesive ‘D’ message.

[Joe_Weider]

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
vroom wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Can you discuss without resorting to BS.

There is no statememnt directly or indirectly from Pres. Bush that validates this paper. Even in the original link from the other source it was tempered with the question of repudiation of the source of this document, as well as the validity of the publication that ran with it.

Please vroom, I understand my conclusion could differ from others, but have your facts in order should you choose to discuss. How can you intelligently discuss something you haven’t even read? It just happens to support your stance so you want to give it credence before evaluating it on your own. I’ve evaluated it and give it quite little. You are welcome to your own.

Is this the memo I haven’t read?

The Times & The Sunday Times

I haven’t given it any credence at all at this point. It is suggestive, but I said I’d be surprised if it was the only thing in hand if Kerry was really going to try for impeachment. If there are other things, then it would become one piece of evidence amongst those others.

That isn’t clear, simple and evident?

Of course the Bush administration would never validate the paper. Do you live in Bizarro world? Do you think the president or the administration would admit to doing something like this if it was actually done? That would be like expecting Clinton to own up to getting blowjobs voluntarily.

Where is this BS you refer to? How the heck have I done anything to take a stance other than wait and see? You are really very amusing – if I claimed it was too hot outside you’d tell me it was too cold.

–

Joe, I can always trust you to jump in with a slam even if it isn’t deserved. Thanks.

Same old stuff. You make your claim based on the assumption that they have more than what they’ve offered. Duh!

All we can discuss at the given time is what they have brought forward as possible info worthy of impeachment. I simply said this document is hardly evidence and certainly not enough for impeachment. Then the great vroom machine took off into the what if world once again. Don’t remember. Go back and reread your post to me and the RJ. What a bunch of maybe, what if, have you looked at this possibility vroom.

this doc. is hardly ‘suggestive’ taken into context its origin and publicator. No smoking gun here.

Accusing me of living in Bizarro world is simply another attempted distraction because you simply can’t argue on topic. You always sink. And the Nixon tapes would suggest that in the past people have discussed their wrong doing. Please come back with something better than random attacks and what ifs.

As for the weather. 85 and sunny. Got the grill going and playing in the pool.
[/quote]

This is more fun than the time I set the cat’s tail on fire.
Accidentally.
He’s okay now…
But boy did he run for a minute or two!

[vroom]

Joe, fair enough. Contrary to popular belief I won’t begrudge you your opinion at all.

[vroom]

All we can discuss at the given time is what they have brought forward as possible info worthy of impeachment. I simply said this document is hardly evidence and certainly not enough for impeachment.

Fine, as I told Joe, I won’t begrudge you your opinion.

However, I don’t have to agree with your assessment that the only thing we can discuss is the document in question (which I apparently haven’t read).

It’s not up to you to decide what can and cannot be discussed, by me, or by anyone else.

Then the great vroom machine took off into the what if world once again. Don’t remember. Go back and reread your post to me and the RJ. What a bunch of maybe, what if, have you looked at this possibility vroom.

No shit sherlock!

Isn’t that exactly what we argued about elsewhere? That I’m trying to look at things, analyze them, see where they lead, point out what if scenarios?

What is your malfunction? Just as you can have your opinion and state it, I can ask “what if”. I can open up other avenues of discussion, if anyone cares to entertain the notions I raise.

If you don’t wish to entertain “what if” scenarios, then simply don’t. You don’t have to start whining about how “vroom is at it again” if that is all you are referring to.

For the record, I’m not willing to jump to a conclusion concerning what may or may not come out starting on Monday. I’d like to wait until Monday to decide whether or not it is simply this one document (which I haven’t read).

So, by way of illustration, my “what if” questioning appears to have lead down the avenue of whether or not the leadership of the democratic party is currently inept.

Joe expressed his viewpoint on this, and I find that interesting (thanks Joe). This is part of why I ask “what if”. I’m not trying to state that Joe is wrong, or that there must be more, or that the administration will be impeached.

It seems that is what you wish I was arguing or something… ?

[Joe_Weider]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Joe, fair enough. Contrary to popular belief I won’t begrudge you your opinion at all.[/quote]

well, don’t forget, vroom–we’re both Liberterians–you just appear to veer off on one side and me the other.
But I have no problem with a good conservative democrat. In fact–I’d rather have a good Southern Democrat than most of these Northeastern Blue Blood Country Club Republicans.

[Joe_Weider]

[quote]vroom wrote:

It seems that is what you wish I was arguing or something… ?[/quote]

maybe because you usually are, or appear to be?
Kind of like the way you try to dismiss me sometimes as only good for one liners?
Or Veg as a porno-bong boy?

It happens, bro.
Such are the (uh oh…) labels we make for ourselves.

[sasquatch]

vroom

what ifs are great if they have some basis to start with at all. you just abused someone in another thread for having to discuss ‘mythery’ in supplements and nutrition. if they don’t even have some factual basis what ifs mean nothing. It doesn’t mean you are deep thinking the issue at all. What if this doc. means nothing, but Kerry and the dems have other evidence much stronger? I mean where can we go with that discussion?

OPINION! When the hell have you ever stated one. For some reason you think Monday will come and things will be dynamically different. How about you do better than that.

You want to argue with me just to argue. You try arguing about a doc. you have not even read. All you can do is call names and throw conspiracy concepts and possible other situations that may or may not happen. I’ve stayed on topic about the one doc. that this impeachment so far rests.

It’s baseless and not even worthy of such highspeak like impeachment. It comes from a source that’s less than reputable. What else could they have if this is the card they are showing.

Show me a logical and reputable what if and I’ll discuss, but to think so far out there is just not worthy of discussion. Even in a court of law a lawyer can’t just say this scenario may have ocurred to lay reasonable doubt, if that said scenario has no basis in fact. It’s a straw man to the highest degree.

Kind of like the personal attacks you continue to throw into each post of yours. If your argument was that strong, you just could rationally sit down and talk about the issues. You choose not to, I wish you would.

[sasquatch]

[quote]vroom wrote:
All we can discuss at the given time is what they have brought forward as possible info worthy of impeachment. I simply said this document is hardly evidence and certainly not enough for impeachment.

Fine, as I told Joe, I won’t begrudge you your opinion.

However, I don’t have to agree with your assessment that the only thing we can discuss is the document in question (which I apparently haven’t read).

It’s not up to you to decide what can and cannot be discussed, by me, or by anyone else.

Then the great vroom machine took off into the what if world once again. Don’t remember. Go back and reread your post to me and the RJ. What a bunch of maybe, what if, have you looked at this possibility vroom.

No shit sherlock!

Isn’t that exactly what we argued about elsewhere? That I’m trying to look at things, analyze them, see where they lead, point out what if scenarios?

What is your malfunction? Just as you can have your opinion and state it, I can ask “what if”. I can open up other avenues of discussion, if anyone cares to entertain the notions I raise.

If you don’t wish to entertain “what if” scenarios, then simply don’t. You don’t have to start whining about how “vroom is at it again” if that is all you are referring to.

For the record, I’m not willing to jump to a conclusion concerning what may or may not come out starting on Monday. I’d like to wait until Monday to decide whether or not it is simply this one document (which I haven’t read).

So, by way of illustration, my “what if” questioning appears to have lead down the avenue of whether or not the leadership of the democratic party is currently inept.

Joe expressed his viewpoint on this, and I find that interesting (thanks Joe). This is part of why I ask “what if”. I’m not trying to state that Joe is wrong, or that there must be more, or that the administration will be impeached.

It seems that is what you wish I was arguing or something… ?[/quote]

You needed Joe to tell you that the Dem leadership is inept! No offense Joe, but that was not a well kept secret.

And nice attempt to say this is where your what if’s went. It went that way cause you accused him of hating all liberals. Please, at least quote yourself correctly. Or is it hard to type one handed while you pat yourself on the back with the other.

[Joe_Weider]

[quote]sasquatch wrote:

You needed Joe to tell you that the Dem leadership is inept! No offense Joe, but that was not a well kept secret.

And nice attempt to say this is where your what if’s went. It went that way cause you accused him of hating all liberals. Please, at least quote yourself correctly. Or is it hard to type one handed while you pat yourself on the back with the other.[/quote]

(mock outrage):
HEY!

LOL…

[vroom]

It’s baseless and not even worthy of such highspeak like impeachment. It comes from a source that’s less than reputable. What else could they have if this is the card they are showing.

Well, first, is the link I pointed to the wrong document? If it is, point me to the right document, otherwise stop accusing me of not reading the damned thing.

Now, second, you are so guilty of what you accuse me of. I’ve expressed the opinion that I’d be surprised if that was all they had. I may be wrong, so be it if so.

Also, third, you have absolutely no idea whether or not they have more. I at least am willing to admit the same with respect to my knowledge.

Finally, fourth, you have absolutely no idea whether or not the claims are baseless, other than again, your own opinion.

Monday, assuming anything happens on Monday, and the days that follow, could end up being interesting. Shoot, if this document is indeed everything, then Monday will be over within minutes.

What are you so fired up about?

You simply cannot stand when I discuss an issue. Too bad. Can you not have an opinion, a simple opinion, without it having to hinge on how wrong I am in some way?

My opinion has exactly zero to do with you. Your opinion should have exactly zero to do with me. However, it appears to be all tied up in some type of purported agenda you think I have in this matter.

Why don’t you explain to me what it is? At least that way I’ll know…

[Joe_Weider]

[quote]vroom wrote:
It’s baseless and not even worthy of such highspeak like impeachment. It comes from a source that’s less than reputable. What else could they have if this is the card they are showing.

Well, first, is the link I pointed to the wrong document? If it is, point me to the right document, otherwise stop accusing me of not reading the damned thing.

Now, second, you are so guilty of what you accuse me of. I’ve expressed the opinion that I’d be surprised if that was all they had. I may be wrong, so be it if so.

Also, third, you have absolutely no idea whether or not they have more. I at least am willing to admit the same with respect to my knowledge.

Finally, fourth, you have absolutely no idea whether or not the claims are baseless, other than again, your own opinion.

Monday, assuming anything happens on Monday, and the days that follow, could end up being interesting. Shoot, if this document is indeed everything, then Monday will be over within minutes.

What are you so fired up about?

You simply cannot stand when I discuss an issue. Too bad. Can you not have an opinion, a simple opinion, without it having to hinge on how wrong I am in some way?

My opinion has exactly zero to do with you. Your opinion should have exactly zero to do with me. However, it appears to be all tied up in some type of purported agenda you think I have in this matter.

Why don’t you explain to me what it is? At least that way I’ll know…[/quote]

if they had anything else we’d have seen it or heard of it by now.
They’re incapable of keeing their mouths shut…they hate GWB so much.

Why are you so ready to say that they have more…?

[system]

Vroom should be a DNC strategist. Then democrats would not waste our time with this nonsense.

Kerry is a crybaby girly man and he is mad that he lost to us.

[Professor_X]

This entire argument is stupid. For anyone to have any other opinion than “let’s wait and see” at this point would mean your bias has taken over all common sense. Unless one of you here understands the strategy involved along with all possible evidence or why Kerry would even be the one to promote this over all others, everyone eluding to some sort of conclusion at this point is simply filling up internet space.

If it is bullshit, I would sure as hell like to know it for myself, not have anyone biased on either side tell me it is bullshit before all facts have come out. You pseudo-politicians kill me. Politics is as full of lies, popularity and nonsense as it was in high school when people were running for class president. You would think some of you would have grown out of your pom-poms by now.

[vroom]

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
It went that way cause you accused him of hating all liberals.[/quote]

Hahahahahahahah! And you got that from this… ?

[quote]I know that neither of you has much respect for “liberals” or the democratic party, but do you really think they are that stupid?

I mean, we’ll find out whether or not you are right shortly, I am certainly not claiming to know!

I’m not trying to criticize your viewpoints at all, it just seems astounding to me to reject a party that represents nearly half the population so casually.[/quote]

Joe went out and said yes, he did think the current leadership is that stupid (or something to that effect, I’m to lazy to go back and quote it exactly, feel free to do so yourself). I then said that I don’t have any issue with that opinion.

Hardly anything untoward going on there… talk about reaching! Why are you making such a fool of yourself over this?

[Joe_Weider]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Why are you making such a fool of yourself over this?[/quote]

you just have that affect on people I guess, vroomster.

[sasquatch]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
This entire argument is stupid. For anyone to have any other opinion than “let’s wait and see” at this point would mean your bias has taken over all common sense. Unless one of you here understands the strategy involved along with all possible evidence or why Kerry would even be the one to promote this over all others, everyone eluding to some sort of conclusion at this point is simply filling up internet space.

If it is bullshit, I would sure as hell like to know it for myself, not have anyone biased on either side tell me it is bullshit before all facts have come out. You pseudo-politicians kill me. Politics is as full of lies, popularity and nonsense as it was in high school when people were running for class president. You would think some of you would have grown out of your pom-poms by now.[/quote]

my opinion is based on the document that started this thread. Please remove lips from vrooms ass and listen. Or better yet, read the document in question and tell me if you see any validity.

I drew my conclusion on the basis that this is the document Kerry quoted and if that’s all they got it’s nothing.

That is what your boy is arguing sir. I think that is fair logic on my part.

As I, and others, thank you have suggested if they had more we would have heard it. This is Kerry’s last stand to draw attention to himself and away from Hillary-IMO. I took a stance, you can agree or disagree, that’s fine. That’s debate. But try not to go off topic on ‘other’ info that may or may not exist. If that’s your position then it is you who should shut up until Monday.

I’m calling this bet–he’s bluffing with garbage and my pair is gonna bust his ass. Any takers!