Tom,

With regard to impeachment....................

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Florida may start turning toll roads and bridges over to private investors.   Can you imagine how hgh the tolls might go?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1667

The Deans are first.

Timestamp XX:38

19 minutes?  Bit me, please.  No, really, I mean it; bit me. 

bit s/b bite

as in bite me, HQ...really.

Mike wrote "With regard to impeachment...................."

I don't think the Declaration of Independence actually addresses the question of impeachment.  If you're militating to overthrow the government, I suppose I would have an issue with that, too.

Florida may start turning toll roads and bridges over to private investors.   Can you imagine how hgh the tolls might go?

>

The road system is part of what I think WE consider the public trust or that which is held universally for the common good.

Selling the common good is a fascist attack on liberal politics and economy.

I guess the right-wing will do what they will

...just as Bush said he will "sprint to the end" 

floridagal wrote "Florida may start turning toll roads and bridges over to private investors."

I'd dub this the Ron Paul Road and Bridge Improvement Plan. 

Question - say we do impeach. And Bush is removed from office.

Then what? And how long would it take?

I'd like to hear from those in favor of impeachment cuz I'm just not getting the logic.

I get the "why" from an emotional viewpoint, but from a practical one, why would this be a good thing? Especially with the Dems having such a favorable position as we head toward the election next November?

Tom Bearse
Sun, 12/02/07
8:41 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

LOL Tom.........you are such a prime example of a politician.

Apologies if this has already been posted.

The DNC Strips Michigan Of Delegates: http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/arch...

Denise, you've asked the pertinent question, imo.

Impeach Bushie and we get Cheney-in-charge for the remainder of the Bush term. 

Impeach Dick and we've got Pelosi taking over through the remainder of term....based on comments by HuJo and others here she's as bad as the current administration.

What, aside from the emotional argument, which is admittedly, compelling.....what practical gain is there?

and good evening to all, btw:) 

Denise
Sun, 12/02/07
8:52 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well Denise, for what its worth, its the same thing you do with a little spoiled brat that has gotten into trouble.....you simply teach him/her not to do such a thing again..of course, I doubt a little child would do what a Nixon or Bush have done.................again, go back and read your history to what your Founding Fathers rejected..........................you and Tom seem content to asume that the Democrats will win in 2008...............Id say this one is in serious doubt at this point....................

Hey cChal good to see you!

Yes it's very emotional. After 51 yrs on the planet I still find that logic bodes much better than wishin' and hopin' for the best outcomes.

Hey I'd love to see them behind bars, but I am hoping the World takes them on in the Hague once they are free of their obligations to the United States. Right now no one will touch them.

Let's hope the World does the right thing. There will be many more voices that will rise up against them than our measly Congress could ever provide at this moment in time.

Denise said,  "Yes it's very emotional. After 51 yrs on the planet I still find that logic bodes much better than wishin' and hopin' for the best outcomes."

 >

http://wfmu.org/playlists/shows/5958 

Dusty Springfield  Wishin and Hopin im Deutsch             1:22:02 (Real)

LOL Paine - you devil. Now that song will be in my head all night.

The Beatles  Fan Club Christmas SIngle, 1967   The Beatles Christmas Album          2:50:47 (Real)

Mike wrote "LOL Tom.........you are such a prime example of a politician."

But I'm not a politician.  How do you reconcile these two statements?

Al Stewart  Nostradamus   Past Present and Future  Janus    0:16:00 (Real) http://wfmu.org/playlists/shows/24961

Dusty Springfield, lol!  in my head now.

...and teach them how to war!

William Shatner  King Henry the Fifth   Transformed Man  Rev-Ola    1:04:23 (Real) http://wfmu.org/playlists/shows/24961

I don't think bankruptcy is a sexy political issue. Don't get me wrong: I think bankruptcy policy is critically important to working families. In a world with inadequate health insurance, job insecurity, predatory lenders, family break ups and plain old financial mistakes, bankruptcy can be a family's last chance to get back into the economic mainstream. But no one sees bankruptcy in their future, and those who have been through it want to forget, so there is no special interest group for the protection of bankruptcy laws.

Enter Chris Dodd. He released a major policy statement entirely about bankruptcy. He has good, strong suggestions that revolve around a single theme: Bankruptcy is a critical safety net for families that he promises to strengthen.

He's not a Johnny-Come-Lately to this issue. Over the decade of The Bankruptcy Wars (1995-2005), Senator Dodd consistently sided with the families against the banks. I recall the many, many press conferences the senator held to highlight how families--particularly families headed by women--would be hurt by the new laws. Now he's pushing the need for a safety net into the political conversation about the economic survival of the middle class. 

Bankruptcy isn't a sexy issue, but I'm sure glad Senator Dodd is willing to speak up.

(worth a click to Dodd's statement)

Night, all. 

Michael - you really think the GOP will get in next year? Unreal...

And I don't get your analogy of spoiled brats and Bush/Cheney. If that is what you meant. You're hard to follow sometimes.

And the founding fathers aren't here to speak at the moment but I have a feeling logic would prevail with them as well.

Denise..

You fail to see the logic? I think if one
soldier is spared from being blown to bits would be reason enough for me.

You say logic over hope, yet you say you hopw the rest of the world will solve our problem by taking our criminals to the Hague. I think that is our responsibility. The rest of the world isn't going to save us, they couldn't care less anymore.

Audrey you're emoting all over the place. I did not say logic over hope. You are putting words on my fingertips.

Do you really think impeachment will stop this war? How??

Don't even try to twist this into making me look like I don't care about our soldiers.

Cheap shot there and I'm surprised at you.

Hoping for something that won't happen is fruitless. Impeachment won't happen. It just won't. Does not mean that it should not - read my words carefully.

Just trying to understand how impeachment will end the war.

Would also like to know what you'd do with Cheney, audrey, if impeachment actually goes through - can you at least answer that part of the question?

Off until tomorrow night....heading to SC. Lovely red state; glad it's only for a week.

My! I think you doth protest too much. Nobody suggested that you don't care about the troops, that was your thought.

Impeachment would start a chain of events leading in the right direction. Brains more capable than mine are advocating this.

Mike may have a point since Howard has recently said that the election is going to be much closer than anyone thinks.

Didn't see one of your comments. The blog is not entering them in sequence.

I'm not sure I understand your question about what I would do about Cheney.
Hres 333 by Kucinich calls for the impeachment of Cheney. It is now in Comm. The plan is as it has been explained, to impeach Cheney first, where more implicating evidence than already exists will reveal itself on Bush. If Cheney could be impeached Bush would appoint someone to be VP who would have to be approved by the Senate. Then Bush could be impeached. It's what really needs to happen. How does history explain how we did nothing if we don't impeach?

1:31
28 degrees

Tanner update:
http://eatapyzch.blogspot.com/

Good morning, BFA!

*********
mainefem: thanks for the heads up on a potential delay for Monica. Hope that the storm doesn't knock everything out.

mprov & Susan: how nice to see your videos posted!

Reed in VT: SO sorry to hear about your wife's father's pancreatic cancer. I lost a former boss and very good friend to that horrible disease nearly two years ago. Your wife has all my sympathy and love.

lindab: you are the Energizer Bunny of VA politics. Thanks so much for all that you do. We watched Webb on MTP yesterday. How nice to see VA turning blue before our eyes because of the work of people like you!

**********
The thread topic: the complete arrogance of putzCo and its ignorance ... or deliberate ... of international laws, conventions and treaties, as well as our own bilateral treaties dealing with extradition, have fulfilled the world's worst fears of a so-called superpower. Thanks so much, putzCo. [Sarcasm, just in case anyone takes me seriously.]

How do we expect any other country to be law-abiding when putzCo break even those we make?

IMO, in the light of overwhelming evidence that putzCo have committed high crimes and misdemeanors, it is the responsibility of Congress to begin impeachment proceedings, whether Dems are complicit or not. And no, I do not for a moment believe that Pelosi in charge would be anything even halfway as bad as the current corrupt band of brothers in crime. This is not something that we should punt to the world, although the world itself may still have some forums to judge these scumbags for crimes that we have not tried them for. Can you imagine how we would have reacted if the German people had said rather than fight the Nazi Reich, they would just wait for the world to sort it out? Oh wait, isn't that what happened ... and in the meantime, millions died and civil liberties went right out the window.

I am not so sure that next year's election will be the panacea that many appear to believe that it will.

In the meantime, I will NOT be a *good little German.* I am truly ashamed and disheartened when I hear such talk.

er ... after *deliberate* above, please add *failure to heed* ... sorry about that.

The Rethugs continue to try to *out-Gawd* each other. Attempting to draw parallels between these and JFK makes me literally want to upchuck.

==============
Romney to deliver key address on faith
· Republican hopes to recapture frontrunner status
· Huckabee produces strong poll showing in Iowa
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Monday December 3, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Mitt Romney last night moved to dampen suspicion among Republican voters about his Mormon beliefs and recapture his frontrunner status for the party's nomination by announcing he will deliver an address on faith and American society.

The announcement, made only hours after a new poll showed the Baptist minister, Mike Huckabee, leaping past Romney to first place in Iowa, which holds its caucuses on January 3, was seen as an attempt to draw parallels with the late John F Kennedy.

In the 1960 elections, Kennedy, America's first and only Catholic president, made a now legendary address about the separation of church and state to assure voters that his faith would have no influence over decisions made in the White House. Mr Romney's speech, scheduled for Thursday, was designed for maximum effect. Romney will appear at the presidential library of the first George Bush in College Station, Texas and will be introduced by the former president.

The campaign said last night that Bush technically will not be endorsing Romney but the show of support was unmistakable.

[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,33143...

How nice to hear good news about Tanner and that he is acting very much like any excited little boy, puddle! ♥

I got to *talk* to my grandbaby last evening, although there was a lot there that apparently made more sense to her than to me. LOL

**************
Wonder how this will be featured in the Creation Museum.

==============
Faster than T rex - the dinosaur 'mummy' that had to run for its life
· Skin and tissue preserved in rare fossil discovery
· Size of herbivore's rump 'shows it could do 28mph'
James Randerson, science correspondent
The Guardian
Monday December 3 2007

If you were unfortunate enough to share the planet with Tyrannosaurus rex there were two ways not to be eaten - either outrun the predator or hide from it. An exquisitely preserved fossil of one of T rex's plant-eating contemporaries shows that it did both.

Dakota, as the find has been nicknamed, was 10 miles an hour faster than its enemy and had a stripey pattern on its skin, possibly to break up its outline and make it less visible. The scientists who have analysed the specimen say its body was subjected to a natural but extremely unusual mummification process after it died, preserving not just bones but skin and soft tissues.

"When you get up close and look at the skin envelope it's beautiful. This is not a skin impression, it's fossilized skin. That's very, very different," said Dr Phil Manning, the palaeontologist at Manchester University who has led the investigation.

The exquisite detail allows researchers to find out how the animal moved - and preliminary investigations have suggested that the way museums put dinosaur fossils together for display is incorrect.

The "dinosaur mummy" is a 3,600 kilogram hadrosaur, or duck-billed dinosaur, that died 65 to 67m years ago - shortly before all the other dinosaurs went extinct, probably because of a massive meteorite impact.

[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/d...

Oh great, now we throw Hitler into our discussion of impeachment?

Please Judy you're much smarter than that!

Sorry my logic hit so many emotional buttons.

What Congress do we currently have that will give us 2/3rds?

As Audrey said, many minds much more intelligent than hers (and mine) want impeachment. And everytime they try to do something, including Dennis, it just gets shelved.

For the past two years we've been trying to do it the right way - but it's not happening.

Why is that?

Supreme idiocy, IMHO. But it's part of the use-and-toss mentality that putzCo have towards all those who are serving our country on the front lines. putzCo, of course, keep themselves well away from any danger whatsoever.

================
Arab-American paratrooper faces deportation after Afghan service
· Highly decorated sergeant ordered to stand trial
· Anti-discrimination committee protests
Ed Pilkington in New York
Monday December 3, 2007
Guardian

A highly decorated Arab-American sergeant in the US army, who is currently serving as a paratrooper in Afghanistan, faces deportation on his return to the United States because of an irregularity in his immigration papers.

Sgt Hicham Benkabbou has been served with an order to stand trial for deportation as soon as he arrives home, despite the fact that he has been on active service in Afghanistan for almost two years with the 508th parachute infantry regiment, known as the Red Devils.

His lawyers say his treatment illustrates the harsh justice meted out to Arab-Americans by the US immigration authorities.

Benkabbou came to the US from his native Morocco in 1987, and was granted permanent residency four years ago. But when he applied to become a naturalised US citizen in 2005 - by which time he was already serving in the army - immigration officials discovered that he had failed to register his first marriage and alleged that the ceremony had been arranged fraudulently to get him into the country.

Benkabbou says that the marriage was annulled and argues it is therefore irrelevant to his immigration status. "I do not think I deserve to get deported after serving honourably during a time of war!" he wrote in an email from Afghanistan.

[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,33142...

Denise: this administration is the Worst. Ever. and I will not apologize for that comparison. I actually am in a pretty good poisition to know exactly how apt it is.

The point is that if we stand for the rule of law, then we must begin the impeachment process. Saying that we can't get 2/3 is a cop-out. We cannot get anything else done so long as they are in office.

And every day, I have to answer the questions: WHY aren't Americans impeaching these men? WHY aren't Americans in the streets?

You guys are in your ivory towers, because that is just the tip of the iceberg over here.

Please tell us how apt it is, Judy.

Hey I'm all for impeachment - just don't know how it's going to happen before they leave office.

Do you?

er ... that should be *position* speaking of which, it's getting on for departure time.

But first, here's DU's wonderful EarlG, who is back this week with the Top Ten.

================
The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 316
December 3, 2007
America's Playa Edition

This week Rudy Giuliani (1) realizes that he probably should never have run for president in the first place, Mike Hucakbee (2,3) enjoys God's support, Dennis Hastert and Trent Lott (9) call it quits, and the Republican Presidential Candidates (10) have a great debate. Don't forget the key!

[...]
http://www.democraticunderground.com/dis...

Impeachment starts with taking it off the table.

I have spent the past six years steeped in issues relating to Holocaust survivors. And still am.

Now gone.

I have a feeling that my posts are being misinterpreted.

I get the "why", just not the "how."

And no one seems to be able to answer that simple question.

Cya Judy.....musta hit a nerve. Would have loved to know about how Nazi Germany relates to present day America.

Guess I'll have to wait or read up on it on my own. I wasn't aware of a holocaust in the United States - other than no healthcare for 48 million. I don't think impeachment will solve that, though.

A new administration will have its work cut out for it.

I understand the frustration. But please don't take it out on me. I just presented my logical thoughts.

My emotional thoughts are much different.

Denise....

The how is getting hr333 back on the table. A couple of Congressmen said our response was not great enough. Dennis can bring it back up again as can any other critter. Then we need o demand that they do it with overwhelming e-mails calls etc. They won't do it if they have to stick their necks out. Hope that answers. gone zzzzzzzs

Denise...

The blog is jumping around.......see 41

Yes crazy blog - I appreciate your responses, audrey.

I guess I'm frustrated, too so I try to take a different path.

I emailed, I called - but saying that we didn't do enough is, to me, a cop out by whoever those "couple of Congressmen" are. It's their job to do the right thing. They need more of US yelling and screaming?

And you wonder why I see things differently?

Congress isn't up to this task. People have gone to Pelosi's house - many of them from my DFA group. They go there quite often. Doesn't do a damn bit of good.

We have 11 months to not only get a vote to impeach, but to carry it out to completion. I get the symbolism of trying to do something so history says that we tried. It's already documented that some in Congress are currently trying, and have for the past three years.

I'd love to see millions in the street. I'd be there with them.

Why isn't it happening? Too complex to answer.

I hate seeing these CRIMINALS get away with this as much as you and everyone else.

Testy subject, obviously. Take care

Putting impeachment on the table and actually starting something would be a necessary warning shot across the bow of the next prez, who just may be a repug.    To do nothing shows the world that there is no longer any rule of law here.

The Germans didn't stop Hitler.  That's your very good comparison.

To keep impeachment off the table is totally disregarding Constitutional Law.  Ask the scholars on Keith and Moyers.

Emotional, yes.  But it's also logical to defend the Constitution against fascism and tyranny.  No, it wouldn't pass in the Senate - or maybe it would if more were brought to light.  

The thing is to START SOMETHING NOW. 

My 2 cents.  Goodnight. 

Cant' resist this.

MEET THE NEW AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARIES! By Linda Milazzo  (7 comments)

Let's hope it's cheney that they advocate impeaching. 

The Busting Down of America By JOHN LORENZ  (8 comments) A diatribe to articulate the "general malaise" and anger felt by many Americans regarding the government targeting US as the enemy.

Bill Douglas: You Say 9/11 Was an Inside Job? There's Nothing I Can Do About It . . . or Is There? (4 comments) FEELING HOPELESS? FRIENDS AND FAMILY FEELING HOPELESS? SHARE THIS SHORT ESSAY WITH THEM. You Say 9/11 Was an Inside Job? There's Nothing I Can Do About It . . . or Is There?

So now what?  Is our oil supply cut off?

Venezuela Hands Narrow Defeat to Chávez Plan Voters narrowly defeated a proposed overhaul to the constitution in a contentious referendum over granting President Hugo Chávez sweeping new powers, the Election Commission announced Monday.The defeat slows Chávez’s socialist-inspired transformation of the country. Venezuela, once a staunch ally of the United States, has become a leading opponent of the Bush administration’s policies in the developing world.

I imagine we'll be hearing from Chavez.

James Petras: CIA Venezuela Destabilization Memo Surfaces Apart from the deep involvement of the US, the primary organization of the Venezuelan business elite, as well as all major private TV, radio and newspaper outlets have been engaged in a campaign of fear and intimidation. Food producers, wholesale and retail distributors have created artificial shortages of basic food items and have provoked large scale capital flight to sow chaos in the hopes of reaping a 'no' vote.

****************

Isn't it interesting that the US seems to *win* elections and *influence* other countries by just a few close votes.  Putzco loves close elections and ours in 08 will be just that, wth Clinton losing if she's the nominee. JMO 

The dems are much to scared and cocky - a very losing combo. 

He should be impeached just for his signing statements.  Look at this one.

David Swanson: The Two Biggest Public Secrets, and How Bush Just Signing Statemented Iraq As noted by the uniquely vigilant Charlie Savage in the Boston Globe, President Bush in November issued a signing statement unconstitutionally overturning 10 sections of H.R. 3222, the "Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2008." Among the little technical details Bush just erased was the requirement that he not take funds appropriated to the Pentagon for one thing and use them for something else.

Ånd now a fond goodnite.

Good morning, everybody

Today I am going to write.  Did you all see the videos from Des Moines?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGI8ZoekW1o 

FYI, so far we've had about 2 inches of snow.  The snow plow came by at 2:30.  It was quite loud, so I assume there wasn't much snow to get out of the way.  Not enough to mute the sound of the scraper on the asphalt.  Typically, the NH sea coast doesn't get as much snow as either the mountains or Massachusetts.  We're above the snow belt that extends from the great lakes to Boston.  The only time we get lots of snow is when the storm goes out to sea and then gets shunted back over Maine and turns into a nor'easter.  It's the same kind of pattern that can happen over north Florida and send hurricanes back over Georgia once they've picked up more water from the Gulf stream.

54.  Yes.

This I do not believe.  This must be a spoof. 

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=4468 

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=4468

Stupid, just plain stupid.  I hate seeing Democrats being stupid. 

Monica Smith
Mon, 12/03/07
6:26 am
___________________________________________________________________________

The bigger question about this so called photo, is which one looks worse?  Scanning it again, Id say the dude in the background looks the best......................

62.

Mike -

The biggest question of all about that photo:

Is that a new type of yarmulka ?

I'd like to hear from those in favor of impeachment cuz I'm just not getting the logic.

Why are any criminals prosecuted? 

When you let a president get away with high crimes and misdemeanors, you encourage future presidents to do the same. But the next Bush will be even worse than this one.

And it's not like DCDems are accomplishing anything else anyway. 

The people of Venuezuela (especially the students) have voted yesterday and Chavez loses.  He won't get to be president (err dictator) for life:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071203/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_constitution

Chavez loses constitutional vote

By FRANK BAJAK, Associated Press Writer

48 minutes ago

CARACAS, Venezuela - Humbled by his first electoral defeat ever, President Hugo Chavez said Monday he may have been too ambitious in asking voters to let him stand indefinitely for re-election and endorse a huge leap to a socialist state.

...

in November issued a signing statement unconstitutionally overturning 10 sections of H.R. 3222, the "Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2008." Among the little technical details Bush just erased was the requirement that he not take funds appropriated to the Pentagon for one thing and use them for something else.

Actually, Bush just overturned the Constitution...... 

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;

The people of Venuezuela (especially the students) have voted yesterday and Chavez loses.

That alone makes him a more honest president than America's. 

Good viseo of sitkas band playing at Fort Wachuka over the weekend..............hes the 3rd from the left..enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT-0MYFMwf0&feature=related

For all you movie buffs, possibly the movie Octopussy will be made into a sequel, with the multi-tasking, multi-tenticle Sen. Larry Criag in the leading role:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071203/ap_on_re_us/craig_encounters

Paper: 8 men claim encounters with Craig

52 minutes ago

BOISE, Idaho - Eight men say they either had sex with Sen. Larry Craig or were targets of sexual advances by the Idaho lawmaker at various times during his political career, a newspaper reported.

...

Good viseo of sitkas band playing at Fort Wachuka over the weekend..............hes the 3rd from the left..enjoy.

The bass player for Strawberry Alarm Clock's name is sitka? 

Ah, Christmas !

"It's beginning to look a lot like ...":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/02/AR2007120202194.html

By Anne E. KornblutWashington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 3, 2007; Page A01

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa, Dec. 2 -- With a new poll showing her losing ground in the Iowa caucus race, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) mounted a new, more aggressive attack against Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Sunday, raising direct questions about his character, challenging his integrity

...

"There's a big difference between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we're willing to fight for," Clinton told reporters here. She said voters in Iowa will have a choice "between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who's walked the walk."

Asked directly whether she intended to raise questions about Obama's character, she replied: "It's beginning to look a lot like that."

The Obama campaign quickly fought back, and the candidate himself called the new effort a sign of desperation.

...

Desparate times, require Desparate measures --

-- thus, the Hillary campaign offers one measure (see photo in comment # 61)

Reminder; http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/23060...

Sitka wrote "When you let a president get away with high crimes and misdemeanors, you encourage future presidents to do the same. But the next Bush will be even worse than this one."

This certainly supplies relief and support to the Republican cabal responsible for setting President Clinton's perjury trap.  However, if you want to get into actual unconstitutional acts, you should more appropriately compare Bush's actions to President Lincoln's suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

Well, Lincoln was a Republican...lol. I(ducking)

And I had a Land of Lincoln license plate on my car from 1973 until 1997, and I was darn proud of it!

Thanks for the civil answers on the overnight thread about impeachment.

Yeah that logic of mine just gets me in trouble at times. Good thing I'm not Speaker of the House or the Chair of the Judiciary Committee.

Gotta run - hoipe the weather in DC is good

I believe the following statement by Hillary Rodham-Clinton speaks volumes about her. 

But I have been for months on the receiving end of rather consistent attacks – well now the fun part starts,” Mrs. Clinton said, punctuating the word “fun.”

I thought the object of a campaign was to discuss issues, not to have fun slandering the other candidates.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/an-attack-from-the-candidates-mouth/

I don't know if anyone has heard that the Clinton camp is now accusing Obama of always having presidential aspirations since he had the audacity to write a paper in kindergarten called I Want To Be President.  The blogs are calling in Kindergate. 

Laugh of the day.......

Election monitors accuse Putin of manipulating victory

The Bush administration has called on Russia to investigate claims the vote was manipulated.

(Please, Putin. Make my day day. Remind the world of Bush's "election.")

This certainly supplies relief and support to the Republican cabal responsible for setting President Clinton's perjury trap. 

Nobody set a trap for Bush. 

However, if you want to get into actual unconstitutional acts, you should more appropriately compare Bush's actions to President Lincoln's suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

It's foolish to compare Lincoln to Bush in any way. But when you're arguing just for the sake of it, anything will do.

Denise wrote "I had a Land of Lincoln license plate on my car from 1973 until 1997, and I was darn proud of it!"

As you should have been, since he is routinely regarded as either the greatest president or one ot the greatest presidents.  However, applying the logic expressed on this blog that defense of the Constituion requires, without discretion, the impeachment of a president who engages in unconstitutional acts, Lincoln should have been impeached.

Sitka wrote "It's foolish to compare Lincoln to Bush in any way."

I dispute that categorically but if you believe it's true, explain why.  Your whims and notions don't supplant logic and reason.

76.

and Herod (err Hillary), seeing that his (err her) reign was threatened, sent out an edict ....

... all prez candidates, all Americans, beware of what you dreamed of as a kindergartener, for the hour draweth near, when across the land, machine-like judgement will be meted out

Sitka wrote "Nobody set a trap for Bush."

They didn't have to.  Bush doesn't require outside assistance to thumb his nose at the Constitution.  Clinton, on the other hand, had to be lured into his misdeed. 

Unfortunately, the ultimate result was perjury.  As a consequence, it's apparent that you favored his impeachment because you believe that when you let a president get away with high crimes and misdemeanors, you encourage future presidents to do the same.

45.

Denise
Mon, 12/03/07
1:48 am
Cya Judy.....musta hit a nerve. Would have loved to know about how Nazi Germany relates to present day America.

----

Seashell already spoke to this but I will too -- the relation of Nazi Germany to US is that we just go along with all the cr*p the president and Congress are doling out in the name of 'fighting terrorism' -- things like waterboarding, Gitmo, suspension of habeas corpus, searches without warrants, the Patriot Act, which is pretty much what Hitler did after their Reichstag got blown up.
http://digg.com/politics/Senate_Bill_195...

Btw, there's a nasty little bill in the above vein in the Senate right now Senate Bill 1959 that we might want to go to the streets and protest.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd...
see also
http://digg.com/politics/Senate_Bill_195...

The bill has already overwhelmingly passed the House of Reps.

We 'good Germans' are just letting it happen.

PREZ CANDIDATES ON CONGRESSIONAL FOOLS

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/linkframe.php?linkid=46758

Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich addressed officials who make up the Democratic National Committee, their last opportunity to speak to such a gathering before the first presidential voting begins in January. Hillary Rodham Clinton was scheduled to speak, too, but canceled after a man took hostages at her office in Rochester, N.H.

Richardson did not go easy on the party, assailing the Democratic-controlled Congress for its failure to accomplish more and calling on the party to win back people's confidence.

"That begins with proving that we're listening to them," he said.

"Look at the last twelve months. Not only are we still in Iraq, we still have the failure called No Child Left Behind. We still have 9 million children with no health insurance. We're still allowing this president to thumb his nose at the Bill of Rights. We're slipping into a recession," Richardson said. "And we can't even reject an attorney general who refuses to condemn torture."

Edwards blamed Democrats as well as Republicans for isolating Washington from the rest of the country.

"The American people are on the outside," he said. "And on the other side, on the inside, are the powerful, the well-connected and the very wealthy. ... The truth is that it's not just Republicans who built this wall. Democrats helped

I dispute that categorically but if you believe it's true, explain why.

If you want to play devil's idiot, you'll have find another straight man. 

Sitka wrote "you want to play devil's idiot, you'll have find another straight man."

It's hardly surprising, but you didn't explain a thing.  I don't really think that inserting bromides from Sitka's Political Alamanac is a reasonable substitution for reasoned political discussion, but I'm not  the judge.

Will Jonah be able to survive being swallowed up by the C machine (err whale) ?:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thefernandeses/247366291/

FROM DICTIONARY.COM

SOPHISTRY: unsound or misleading but clever, plausible, and subtle argument or reasoning

THOREAU AND THE "PATRONS OF VIRTUE"

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_charles__071203_henry_thoreau_and_th.htm

 The form of government we have is anything but the democratic republic it purports to be. The more access to wealth a person has the more responsive to his or her needs the government is. Justice and equality cannot follow where access is denied or restricted. Far from a government of the people, for the people and by the people, we now have a government that is the exclusive domain of the rich and powerful and has the same level of exclusivity as an expensive country club or resort. The poor and disenfranchised are barred from entry and are thus marginalized. 

Capital government is the equivalent of a bank’s automatic teller machine. Corporate lobbyists put their money into it and the machine prints out the legislation they paid for. It is a system in which the creator of the machines is no longer their master. We have become, as Thoreau said, “the tools of our tools.” 

The people should not, and must not lend their material support to a government that so obviously works in the private corporate interest at the expense of the public well being. To do so is an exercise in self-deception and futility. 

Material wealth is only rarely attracted to virtue. Voluntary poverty and simplicity is the usual domain of virtue, as history attests. Conversely, immense wealth is attracted to vice, to the mean-spirited, the selfish, the very aggressive and the morally depraved. The best people throughout history did not possess great material wealth. To paraphrase Charles Dickens, “Humanity was their business.” 

What could be more incompatible than virtue and wealth, than business and morality? What could be more opposed to beauty, to truth, justice; to art and poetry, to life—than big business and capitalism? It is telling that our cultural icons are people like Donald Trump, Bill Gates, George Steinbrenner and other business tycoons, not virtuous men like Frederick Douglas and Henry David Thoreau or women like Mary Harris—the fiercely tenacious Mother Jones. 

By participating in capitalism we have created a culture that over emphasizes competition and conquest; a culture that defines greed and lust as the highest expressions of success and as the most desirable symbols of status. It is a culture that feeds at the public trough and gorges itself on imperial wars; a system that pays favors to the legal fiction of corporations while rejecting social justice, the needs of the people and planetary health. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/03/whillary103.xml

By Alex Spillius in Washington

Hillary Clinton has been booed by fellow Democrats as a new poll shows she had slipped behind Barack Obama, her main opponent in the race for the party's presidential nomination.

During an interview in front of 3,000 Democratic supporters, Mrs Clinton was jeered over her stance on contentious proposals to allow illegal immigrants to become citizens.

Senator Clinton, who addressed the meeting in Des Moines, Iowa, by telephone, was asked whether, if elected President, she would "make a decision to give undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship" during her first 100 days in office.

"I have been favouring a plan to citizenship for years," Mrs Clinton said.

"I voted for it in the Senate, I have spoke out about it around Iowa and the country and in my campaign. And as President, comprehensive immigration reform will be a high priority for me."

But illegal immigrants would not be granted amnesty and would have to "earn" citizenship, she said, sparking sporadic booing from some Left-wing activists in the audience.

The jeering then spread throughout the crowd, grew louder and continued even after Mrs Clinton hung up the telephone at the end of the interview.

With just a month before the first votes are cast to determine the Democratic candidate, the reception is symptomatic of an apparent growing antipathy toward the former First Lady.

....

Though Mrs Clinton is still considered the leading candidate nationally, another Iowa poll, conducted by the American Research Group, shows support for her among women, the demographic underpinning her campaign, had dropped 10 points in a month.

...

Judy, yes!!

11:11
32 degrees

To set straight the Florida story re: roads/bridges "sale," the state roads and bridges belong to the citizens of Florida and cannot be sold without a state consitutional amendment and perhaps not even then.

What is being discussed is LEASING them some of them for a period of 50 years. However, I cannot envision any investors having the courage to take on, say, the  Sunshine State Skyway bridge for 50 years. That's a lot of liability, maintenance, unknowns and ongoing expenses. That's why the state runs a huge deficit there and with other roads.

but you didn't explain a thing.

Explaining to you is like playing the "why?" game with a 5 year old.

Sitka wrote "Explaining to you is like playing the 'why?' game with a 5 year old."

If I couldn't produce an explanation, I wouldn't bother trying either.

83. I just noted I boobooed a link when referring to Germany's Reichstag above. The correct link is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_(building)

Obama may have a hard time continuing to sell his health care plan without the "mandate" provision. Even Paul Krugman recently dedicated an entire column to this unworkable aspect of BO's plan.

Any health care plan would have to be mandatory as Edwards' plan is or it would collapse of its own financial weight. The concept that anyone can opt out of paying for the plan, then opt in anytime they need it (all the plans call for all companies to accept anyone at any given time) is not realistic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_f...

One more try??

If I couldn't produce an explanation, I wouldn't bother trying either.

Go ahead and explain whatever your point is.  You never explain anything -- just ask dumb questions based on non sequiturs.

Obama may have a hard time continuing to sell his health care plan without the "mandate" provision. Even Paul Krugman recently dedicated an entire column to this unworkable aspect of BO's plan.

While it's good to discuss the merits of different health care proposals, the odds of any of them being enated at all by the current corrupt Congress are nil. And if anything is passed by them it would be but a shadow of any of the candidates proposals and written by the insurance corps.

That's why, while I'm interested in various ideas, they don't seem worth basing a final decision upon whom to vote for.

For Denise:

To be successful with impeachment, I would question whether removal from office is the goal.

I favor impeaching Cheney (because he is the REAL power behind the throne) and conducting hearings.

1) It would allow the case to be made, laying out for all to see the crimes that have been committed by this Administration.

2) It would result in testimony and subpoenaes that may UNCOVER more wrongdoing that we aren't even aware of. It may result in actions taken by the Administration (like destruction of docs, perjury) that would make actual removal more possible.

3) Most of all, it would show that the Constitution, separation and RULE of law matter again in this country. Those are all successes that spring from impeachment proceedings, even if actual impeachment doesn't occur.

It is difficult to see how the votes will ever be there NOW but facts and actions may be revealed that would bring it about.

ps. to Denise. Reasonable and CARING people as you are (noone can question that!) can disagree.

But hopefully, impeachment can be see in a broader light than just succeeding in removing Cheney from office.

Pelosi took impeachment off the table because she only sees success as an end result rather than a process.

looks like the Obama camp will not allow themselves to be swift-boated:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071203/ap_po/on_the2008_trail_19

New Obama Web site on Clinton criticism

20 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - As Hillary Rodham Clinton seeks to distinguish herself from Barack Obama with a more aggressive, confrontational tone, the Obama camp is adding to its quick response machine.

The campaign opened a Web site Monday, hillaryattacks.barackobama.com, to keep track of Clinton's criticisms, hoping to build a case that she is running a negative campaign. The step is a sign of the new friction in the Democratic presidential race with just one month before the first votes are cast in Iowa.

"We're asking all of you to be vigilant and notify us immediately of any attacks from Senator Clinton or her supporters as soon as you see them so that we can respond with the truth swiftly and forcefully," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said in a Web posting for supporters.

Clinton, who had lately focused her criticism of Obama on his health care plan, said Sunday it was time to begin defining the differences among the candidates.

"I have been, for months, on the receiving end of rather consistent attacks," she said in Iowa. "Well, now the fun part starts. We're into the last month, and we're going to start drawing the contrasts."

Clinton has been a main target of Democrats, particularly Obama and Edwards, who have tried to equate her with an old Washington establishment that would not foster political change.

...

* rdorgan
Mon, 12/03/07
11:54 am

The saga of battling websites...is this an election or a food fight? These websites are just another way for candidates to "go negative" and not be seen as doing so, and are a diversion from the issues and problems we face.

Criticizing another candidate's positions on major issues (like drawing contrasts on health care) is legitimate. But this back and forth by Clinton and Obama is beyond that.

Good luck for the two of them. Edwards is in a perfect position as the two of them go negative on each other. Expectations are low for him to finish in top two positions which is what he will do.

huron John.....

Thank you for 89.

Ewards gave Obama a real boost in the last debate by choosing to ask him about raising the minimum wage to 9.50/hour. Obama got an opportunity to support that and outline his views on poverty. Could this be the start of an Edwards/Obama matchup?

Edwards / Obama in 2008...Obama in 2016! Sixteen years of progressive Administrations.

102.

Edwards seems to hold no punches against Clinton (have you seen the debates ?).

Anyways, Edwards (who I've never said is not ready to be president in 2008, unlike someone else here who repeatedly says that Obama isn't ready and won't be until 2016) has indicated recently in a debate that his and Obama's forces working together would unite the progressives against the Washington establishment.  Clinton just stood there.

As for Obama, like I said, it's called rapid response, something that Kerry didn't do when he was swift-boated.

Welcome the 1st place, Huckabee....

Huckabee has consistently understated his role in the parole of rapist Wayne DuMond, who had been convicted in the 1984 rape of a distant cousin of former President Clinton.

Two months after taking office, Huckabee stunned the state by saying he questioned DuMond’s guilt and that it was his intention to free the rapist, who had been castrated by masked men while awaiting trial.

Huckabee said then he had “serious questions as to the legitimacy of his guilt” and acknowledged later that he had met with DuMond’s wife about the case while he was lieutenant governor. Two months after ascending to the governor’s office, Huckabee met with the woman again.

The ex-governor now blames his predecessor for making DuMond parole eligible — Jim Guy Tucker commuted a life-plus-20 years sentence to 39 1/2 years — but distances himself from his role in DuMond’s release. Huckabee met privately with the state parole board, and two members have said he pressured them for a vote.

“He made it obvious that he thought DuMond had gotten a raw deal and wanted us to take another look at it,” former board member Charles Chastain said in 2001. “Some board members who were usually very tough about letting people out … (later) voted in favor of him, and seemed eager to.”

On his campaign Web site, Huckabee says the parole board was made up entirely of Democrats appointed by Clinton and Tucker.

It doesn’t mention that Huckabee reappointed board member Railey Steele days before he voted with three other members to set DuMond free. DuMond was later convicted of killing a woman in Missouri and died in 2005.

======================================

Tax Hike Mike! 

Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has taken to calling himself a “fiscal conservative,” but who ever heard of a fiscal conservative who raised taxes and spending through the roof while governor of Arkansas? Mike Huckabee is also calling himself “a different kind of Republican,” but that’s just a codeword for a big-government Republican who wants to cover up his tax-and-spend record with folksy talking points and one-liners. Sorry Tax Hike Mike. No dice.

Sitka wrote "Go ahead and explain whatever your point is.  You never explain anything -- just ask dumb questions based on non sequiturs."

This is demonstrably false, but your uninformed indictments are immaterial to me.  Rather than reproduce the entire string of posts, one for the third time, I'll respond to your request with a cursory summary of them.

During the Clinton administration, Republicans showed that they completely misunderstood the impeachment clause of the Constitution, employing it as a political weapon to either harass or, preferably, depose a popular, popularly elected president because they opposed his rule in office. The president had not acted unlawfully, nor was he defrauding the country or otherwise betraying his trust with the American people, but he could be made to disobey the law with some clever maneuvering. So, Republican partisans joined forces to sue the president for alleged sexual misconduct, which the Supreme Court stupidly and unwittingly abetted, and cornered him by forcing him to lie under oath in an unsuccessful attempt to cover up his infidelity.

This is a felony, so there was a pretense upon which to initiate impeachment proceedings. Of course the President wasn’t guilty of anything more grievous than stupidity, but in the overheated atmosphere of partisan political combat, the gravity of the conduct was insignificant. To the perpetrators, the end justified the means.

If turnabout is fair play, Bush is also to be subject to impeachment, either because he disingenuously started a war for his own political purposes, violated Fourth Amendment protections against searches without warrants, or both. This idea is foolish for a number of reasons:

1) Impeachment will rally supporters around an embattled president with historically low favorable ratings and help give Republicans, whose current political fortunes are poor and worsening, a boost by allowing them to circle the wagons against what voters will perceive is a partisan political attack. This is exactly what happened in Clinton’s case, and the impeachment effort spectacularly crashed and burned;

2) As others here besides me have noted, Democrats will appear implicated in the very misdeeds they hold hearings on, because Democratic members of the House and Senate authorized the attack of Iraq in a craven abdication of Constitutional responsibility, and because the Gang of Eight was briefed on the unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping before the program was implemented, placing their judgment under the same scrutiny as the administration’s. Unquestionably, this hypocrisy and the unapologetic partisan nature of this inquiry will form the subject of endless speeches by Republican House members, day after day during televised hearings, providing an effective distraction during an election year from what otherwise are issues on which the American people generally agree with Democratic presidential candidates and Democratic congressional majorities;

3) Because a two-thirds majority of the Senate is required for conviction, the upshot of impeachment will be a lot of bickering and rhetorical hyperventilating, ending with the status quo ante. In other words, nothing will be accomplished; and

4) Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Democrats will sincerely flatter stupid Republicans by following them off a cliff when they imitate the Republican impeachment fiasco. Only two presidents have been impeached in the nation’s long history and none convicted, amply demonstrating that impeachment is something other than a toy with which to cavalierly overturn the results of a popular democratic election by fiat. If questions about the constitutionality of a president’s actions unconditionally formed the basis for mandatory impeachment proceedings, it should go without saying that a president who suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, as Lincoln did, deserved impeachment for doing just that, a fatuous premise on its face as you yourself acknowledge.

Bush is a clown and a stooge. His legacy will be a crushing Republican defeat in 2008. A host of ills suffered under this administration, including damaging vetoes and execrable appointments to the Supreme Court, will be remedied by the election of a Democratic president to succeed him. Don’t throw him a life preserver just as he’s about to sink under the waves.

True. I have no problem with throwing punches and trying to poke holes in another's arguments and plans. That is what a debate is all about.

Edwards has two veins of attack. One, raising questions about Clinton's ability to step outside the DC power structure and get progressive legislation passed. And two, contrasting how she is part of the problem by taking money from and cozying up to lobbyists as a DC insider.

This works to BOTH Edwards and Obama's benefit. To me, it is the central issue because all of the progressive agenda depends upon having a different power center than the DC elite power structure.

Now expect Edwards to be able to go more positive while the two of them go back and forth. I expect, in the end, people will shift toward Edwards in Iowa. That leaves Obama intact as a very capable complement to the ticket.

I would be happy the other way around, except I don't think obama would pick Edwards and Edwards has said he wouldn't run again as VP (could change, though).

And rdorgan. Clinton's response on her page is just like a food fight....I don't criticize Obama for replying but it just keeps the fight alive. That works to Edwards' advantage, IMO.

After a cursory look at his site, it makes the mistake of repeating the crap Clinton is putting out, giving it even more legs than it deserves. The commentator on NPR just uttered the word "kindergarten" after a story on it. That sums it up nicely!

With all "due respect" sitka, it appears that everything that is discussed here is poo-pooed by you.

It seems your ultimate goal is not to discuss anything at all here except what pleases you, whatever that may be.

Please, if you truly have any input to offer other than your silly hostility which you seem to think will pass for "debate," then let's see it. I truly expect however that this post will simply elicite more of your same 'ol" same 'ol.

Tom wrote: 4) Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Democrats will sincerely flatter stupid Republicans by following them off a cliff when they imitate the Republican impeachment fiasco.

The two cases are not at all similar. One was about lying about sex in office...the other is about lying to start a war that has resulted in over a million deaths. And violating the Constitution. And holding people without right of HC. And torture. And spying on US citizens. And on and on.

Impeachment hearings would lay out the case...summon testimony and possibly cause more info to be released which will make Nixon's impeachment (on the basis of a response to a third-rate burglary) look like a trivial matter.

Tom wrote: 4) Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Democrats will sincerely flatter stupid Republicans by following them off a cliff when they imitate the Republican impeachment fiasco.

The two cases are not at all similar. One was about lying about sex in office...the other is about lying to start a war that has resulted in over a million deaths. And violating the Constitution. And holding people without right of HC. And torture. And spying on US citizens. And on and on.

Impeachment hearings would lay out the case...summon testimony and possibly cause more info to be released which will make Nixon's impeachment (on the basis of a response to a third-rate burglary) look like a trivial matter.

With all due respect, Joan, that's nonsense. 

If you want engage in silly mock debates with Tom on how many angels can stand on the head of a pin, knock yourself out.

And if you have any constructive input besides pointless personal criticism, please share it.

108.

...

except I don't think obama would pick Edwards and Edwards has said he wouldn't run again as VP (could change, though).

+++

IndySteve -

and Obama has said he wouldn't run as VP (could change, though)

Can I at least get a statement out of you that all the dem candidates running are ready to assume the presidency in '08, including Obama ?

No candidate has ever said they would accept VP. Just as no one planning to run says they are planning to.

Indy wrote "The two cases are not at all similar. One was about lying about sex in office...the other is about lying to start a war that has resulted in over a million deaths."

What was the lie that started the war?  That Saddam was sitting on weapons of mass destruction and poised to develop nuclear weapons?  Why did Levin, Graham, Sanders, Feingold, and other Democrats vote against authorization if these were believeable?  If they weren't believable, aren't Clinton, Biden, and Dodd, along with Edwards and Richardson in the gallery, going to be shifting uncomfortably in their seats during the entire Senate trial?

113.

I share it all the time sitka. But this is just the kind of response I expected. Get a better life.

Indy Steve
Mon, 12/03/07
12:21 pm

Tom already knows all that and probably agrees with it. 

Joan......

You may not have read the discussion last night about impeachment. In a word, Seashell, myself, Sitka, Huron John, and Judy for Dean were discussing the desperate need to defend the Constitution and impeach.

Tom Bearse presented the Dem Party line which essentially focuses on the critters keeping their jobs.

Sitka doesn't need my help, but even though I'm sure you don't mean to single him out, I don't think your comments contribute to our unity which is to reform the Dem Party, not make excuses for it.

rdorgan wrote: Can I at least get a statement out of you that all the dem candidates running are ready to assume the presidency in '08, including Obama ?

I have always said I would support Obama (even enthusiastically) if he becomes the nominee. But it's about who is better at assuming the Presidency not just "ready".

Obama will be much better situated as a sitting VP in 2016 when he is only 54 years young. The fact Obama was a state senator just four years ago WILL be made an issue in the general.

Bush is a clown and a stooge. His legacy will be a crushing Republican defeat in 2008. A host of ills suffered under this administration, including damaging vetoes and execrable appointments to the Supreme Court, will be remedied by the election of a Democratic president to succeed him. Don’t throw him a life preserver just as he’s about to sink under the waves.

Impeaching Bush is about doing what's right for the future. Fear is a poor excuse for letting his high crimes and misdemeanors stand unreprimanded.

110.

Um, IndySteve, you need to read or hear more than sound bites like "kindergarten" to see why the NPR commentator used that term.

It was in reference to H Clinton attacking Obama's integrity by stating that he had ambitions to be president since kindergarten days.

Ok, so Clinton is checking back to see that a kindergartener, over 40 years ago, was out to take her coronation mantle away from her for the dem nomination in '08.

Zounds.

Like I said , earlier :

and Herod (err Hillary), seeing that his (err her) reign was threatened, sent out an edict ....

... all prez candidates, all Americans, beware of what you dreamed of as a kindergartener, for the hour draweth near, when across the land, machine-like judgement will be meted out

Sitka doesn't need my help

But what's right always needs our help. You and I had a spirited debate recently and you've shown that disagreement needn't breed animosity. Thank you for that. 

Tom Bearse
Mon, 12/03/07
12:42 pm

Well, you completely avoided the apples and oranges argument I made. And when you bring up Lincoln's suspension of HC compared to Bush's, that is another non-comparable argument. Are you equating the civil war to the "GWOT"???? That would be ridiculous...

On your point, without defending the Dems who voted for IWAR, their vote could be seen in light of BUSHCO LYING and HYPING the threat. Because it was only imminent threat that could justify the attack. Of course, I think it's a weak defense but it is a defense nonetheless.

I share it all the time sitka.

I know, Joan. That's what I was asking you to do now rather than lower yourself to personal criticism and attacks.

I forgive you. 

audrey wrote "Seashell, myself, Sitka, Huron John, and Judy for Dean were discussing the desperate need to defend the Constitution and impeach."

Thanks for your yeoman's work.  You will lend your voice obviously, to the cry to correct the historical injustice of the failure of the House of Representatives to impeach Lincoln for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and Roosevelt for interning people of German and Japanese descent during WWII.  These were clear outrages against the Constituion, such that impeachment should be mandatory under your argument.

Another of Jim Kunstler's prophesies bites the dust, thanks to the manipulation of the market and the gullibility of investors.

http://www.kunstler.com/

 For those of you concerned about my sense of pride -- yes, I sure got that eggy feeling all over my face last week after calling for a thousand-point Dow plunge, only to watch it put on the greatest two-day melt-up in five years. I suppose I underestimate the desperate moves of desperate people against the backdrop of an economy (and a finance sector) that remains unsound to the max despite the 700+ point sucker's rally or dead cat bounce, or whatever you want to call the giddy action in recent days.

The action in the markets now all hinges on how certain species of "derivative" paper -- certificates based on the value of other certificates -- are valued. The certificates in question are mortgage-backed-securities (MBSs), collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), and other instruments based on debt rather than equity, that is loans rather than wealth. Of course, one problem associated with these things is that they exist now mainly in the forms of electrons in computer systems, represented by pixels on screens, not in paper contracts or promises to pay. Thus they are abstracted not just in derivation but in representation. The further and more crucial problem is not that there is necessarily disagreement over their value, but that, in fact, there's a growing consensus that their value is close to zero. And there is enough of the worthless crap to choke banks all over the world.

Citicorp, like many other big banks, is choking on scores of billions of dollars denominated in pixels derived from bad loans. Citicorp is in the unhappy position of not being able to cover its losses on this dreck. It appears to have liabilities exceeding its capital assets. It is even having trouble "papering over" these losses -- i.e. borrowing more money to appear solvent. The loan of $7.5 billion it got last week from Abu Dhabi's sovereign investment fund (a nationalized enterprise) came at the cost of 11 percent interest, a rate more commonly associated with New Jersey racketeers than legitimate bankers.

 The recognition is growing that our financial markets have been subject to mischief so egregious that there will be hell to pay. The current "distress" is the inability of the markets to function -- no matter what the Dow Jones Industrial Average appears to say at any given moment. The legitimacy of the markets and those now pretending to preside over them hangs in the balance as we slide sickeningly into the holidays.

* rdorgan
Mon, 12/03/07
12:45 pm

Ha. LOL! I was listening while I was typing and reading. But I heard it as a kind of double-entendre if you know what I mean!

FROM DICTIONARY.COM

SOPHISTRY: unsound or misleading but clever, plausible, and subtle argument or reasoning

It was in reference to H Clinton attacking Obama's integrity by stating that he had ambitions to be president since kindergarten days.

It's actually an amusing charge since Bill's ambition to be president since childhood are well documented. And it's even been said recently that hillary herself has been harboring such ambitions since high school.

As Rove practices, the best mud to throw at another is your own. 

SOPHISTRY: unsound or misleading but clever, plausible, and subtle argument or reasoning

I've never been guilty of subtlety. And I'm rarely plausible. Clever? Not according to many. 

Indy wrote "Well, you completely avoided the apples and oranges argument I made. And when you bring up Lincoln's suspension of HC compared to Bush's, that is another non-comparable argument. Are you equating the civil war to the "GWOT"???? That would be ridiculous..."

Well, I had a reason.  It was because the argument has been made ad nauseum in the last several threads without helping the debate.  I think I've made it abundantly clear that impeaching Clinton was an asinine mistake. 

What upsets you about the unconstitutional actions of some presidents and not others?

 This must be that big "story" she was holding back a week ago. LOL.

The "goods" she had on Obama! OMG, he wrote what probably half all Kindergartners write!! He's just trying to achieve his goals....this whole tit for tat is belittling the process.

Slip sliding away...slip sliding away...you didn't respond to my point about the LIES of Bushco and other compelling reasons to hold him accountable through the only process available.

As for Lincoln and Roosevelt, they aren't in office. Moot point.

I think I've made it abundantly clear that impeaching Clinton was an asinine mistake.

It wasn't politically since Republicants won* the following elections.

What upsets you about the unconstitutional actions of some presidents and not others?

It's been explained amply that Clinton's crime and misdemeanor was not a high one such as lying the nation into a disaterous war and subverting the Constitution. 

I think we ought to have a blog stike until HQ FIXES THE DAMN CLOCK!!!

Waste of time trying to follow this discussion.

130.

Indy Steve -

Thanks for the response. 

Like I said, Hillary questioned Obama. She looks foolish and that's why her poll numbers (especially amongst women) are starting to slip in Iowa especially.  That slippage benefits both Edwards and Obama.  Obama is starting to respond back more against Clinton's charges, so that Edwards doesn't always have to do all the heavy lifting against Clinton.

Hoping still for a response on this, so here's it again (damn that skipping needle of mine):

Can I at least get a statement out of you that all the dem candidates running are ready to assume the presidency in '08, including Obama ?

OK. Let's impeach Lincoln and Roosevelt retroactively to appease Tom's sense of justice. THEN we'll impeach Bush.

I think we ought to have a blog stike until HQ FIXES THE DAMN CLOCK!!!

Lead on, McDuff! 

The correct quote, from Macbeth, is:
"Lay on, Macduff,"

Sitka wrote "It's been explained amply that Clinton's crime and misdemeanor was not a high one such as lying the nation into a disaterous war and subverting the Constitution."

I regret to inform you that the definition of a high crime and misdemeanor is reserved for the Congress to fashion. 

In any event, your belief is that perjury is not a high crime?  What is it, a low crime?  When police officers routinely perjure themselves in courts of law for the purpose of making criminal indicments stick against the accused, is it your sense that this is a trifling matter, a bagatelle?

This one's for Phil. Yeahhhhhh!!!!

Iowa

Today in Waterloo, Congressman Bruce Braley is to endorse John Edwards for President.

"Today, I'm proud to endorse John Edwards for president," said Braley.

"Throughout this campaign, on issue after issue, John has proposed bold ideas to end the power of special interests in Washington and restore our government to the American people.  John is the only Democratic candidate who grew up in rural America, and he has most specific, most progressive and most far-reaching ideas.  I truly believe he is the best Democratic candidate to lead us to victory in 2008. With his leadership, I believe we can make his vision of One America a reality."

I regret to inform you that the definition of a high crime and misdemeanor is reserved for the Congress to fashion.

You ask for people's opinions and then tell them they don't matter. See what I mean about answering your self serving questions? It's a waste of anyone's time.

Time to change the station. This one's nothing but white noise. 

Sitka wrote "Let's impeach Lincoln and Roosevelt retroactively to appease Tom's sense of justice. THEN we'll impeach Bush."

There's no need for that.  Just give your argument integrity by conceding that impeachment of Lincoln and Roosevelt would have been appropriate in your view.

Edwards' latest ad in NH is up and running.....we need a new center of power.

Sitka wrote "You ask for people's opinions and then tell them they don't matter. See what I mean about answering your self serving questions?"

I never said anything of the sort.  One day you will be enlightened and realize that something does not convert from false to true by the alchemy of your having said it.

127.

audrey

Just for the record, I am not in favor of impeachment of anyone for two reasons: One is the time factor -- Congress would not have had the time to do anything else except impeachment; Two is because the voters who voted in Dems in 2006 did not vote Democrat so that they could spend their time impeaching.

Democrats won the majority in both houses of Congress to get something on behalf of Americans and to do what they could possibly do to end the war.

As for your unity, well I am not here simply to reform the Democratic party. And I don't make excuses for the party either as you wrote. So get your facts straight audrey before you start throwing rocks.

I hope our friends in the northeast are faring OK with these storms. More to come for them tonight and tomorrow.

Sitka
Mon, 12/03/07
1:05 pm

Now you understand how some of us feel when you do it!! Reflect....think....change

Tom, get out of the past!  The citizens did nothing to impeach many years ago.  Are we to make the same mistakes and live in the past?

The time is NOW to defend the Constitution.  NOW.  Impeach Darth cheney first and watch heads roll after that.  Who knows?  The Senate may vote to remove him from office, since he doesn't seem to have many friends there either.  Take the damn first step!  Put impeachment back on the table and the people will immediately like the dems better and the dems will have a much better chance of winning in 08.  As it stands now,  dimpled Huckabee, who looks like a sweet guy you'd wanna have a bratwurst with, could be a real challenge.  Never underestimate the power of the crazy righties who have the backing of the very powerful AIE and AIPAC ..two organizations who would love to see a continual disastrous ME policy.  In a close election, which the righties want desperately, Clinton will lose becuz of two things.... the mischief and lack of election integrity, and her high negatives.  IMO   And how many people, like me, will NOT vote for her?

Pelosi functions under the impression that the ends (winning in 08) justify the means (continuation of war and death).  Run her outta office, CA!   We're doing our best of rid outselves of Gordon Smith, who'd rather see people suffer than allow them medical marijuana, one of his many mental flaws.

busy constructive day   bbl

* rdorgan
Mon, 12/03/07
1:05 pm

I responded adequately above. Go back and find it in this messofablog.

Ok, one more time up a bat (and I'll retire for the inning):

Can I at least get a statement out of you, Indy Steve, that all the dem candidates running are ready to assume the presidency in '08, including Obama ?

* rdorgan
Mon, 12/03/07
1:27 pm

Read the damn blog. I already answered that question above. Go look for it and stop asking.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/25/america/letter.php 

Some words I hope will be eaten:

In the congressional races, individual House and Senate Democrats are raising considerably more than Republicans, and the Democratic campaign committees have hauled in 50 percent more than their opponents so far.

The only place Republicans still have an edge is with the national committees, with the Democrats saddled by a hapless party chairman, Howard Dean, successor to Terry McAuliffe, who first brought the Democrats to financial parity.

In the House and Senate contests, more money usually talks: In the 2006 elections, fewer than 10 percent of the races were won by the candidate who spent less money.

 

152.

Oops, cancel that (I see that the response 117 was before the question 119 -- I must learn to look down both sides of the streeet before I cross with a comment).

Well, IMO all 8 dems are ready to be President in '08, no matter their age or how long they served.

The inning for me is retired (and Tom, in parting for the day, one good news you must be proud of -- the Detroit Redwings having the best record so far in this NHL season).

I am outta here until the FIX THE DAMN BLOG CLOCK. That'll make some of you happy!

And I strongly encourage we conduct a blog strike until it's done. Sick of the incompetence of the tech people at DFA.

Oh, and BTW, PUT UP A NEW THREAD. OPEN THREADS ARE GOOD!

Hey, you don't have to be snippy. I didn't see the response in 117.

Jeez.

* rdorgan
Mon, 12/03/07
1:34 pm

Sorry, but you asked three times and didn't go look. I responded three times. you have a habit of demanding answers to your questions. Sometimes I'll answer them; sometimes not. We aren't required to play by your rules.

I am outta here until the FIX THE DAMN BLOG CLOCK. That'll make some of you happy!

Nah. You'll be missed. 

Indy wrote "you didn't respond to my point about the LIES of Bushco and other compelling reasons to hold him accountable through the only process available.  As for Lincoln and Roosevelt, they aren't in office. Moot point."

Moot point.  I like that.  It permits you to dismiss the importance of a consistent argument. 

Here's another moot point: It's apparently your belief that the lies of a president will form the basis for impeachment.  Now the intellectual integrity of your argument relies on your statement regarding the propriety of impeaching Wilson, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton as well as Bush.  I don't know about the others; those are off the top of my head.  I guess it would require additional hearings. 

Drudge reporting that Democrats are blaming DEMOCRATS for everything - good one.

For six plus years it was BUSH and the REPUBLICAN Congress that lied us into war and kept it going.  That stopped the Democrats from investigating and getting the facts.....from passing any legislation that would help the American people.... that tortured and spied..that were indicted for fraud and obstructing justice, ETC. ...that blew out our economy and made enemies around the world.  Still hiding emails and information that would bust them all - "I don't recall".   The American people sent the Repubicans a strong message in 2006.  They ignored it!  They are still backing Bush and trying to thwart any efforts to change anything.  ALL polls show that the American people are MUCH happier with the Democrats and know what's going on.  They will send the Republicans an even stronger message in 2008...

Republicans are totally disillusioned with their candidates.  WE'RE NOT!:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22080707/

http://hannah.smith-family.com/?p=2133

Seashell wrote "The citizens did nothing to impeach many years ago.  Are we to make the same mistakes and live in the past?"

It wasn't a mistake.

Sam Ross, you have a message at DFA Link.

tom...

You seem to be obsessed with Lincoln and Roosevelt. You need to add Reagan for "going elsewhere to get funding for Contra" when Congress denied him.

I'll concentrate on the menace at hand. we need to do the right thing for our country and kids...simple.

rd wrote "good news you must be proud of -- he Detroit Red Wings having the best record so far in this NHL season."

You have wrung a concession out of me.  I have to say they are a good team this year.

The only place Republicans still have an edge is with the national committees, with the Democrats saddled by a hapless party chairman, Howard Dean, successor to Terry McAuliffe, who first brought the Democrats to financial parity.

What part of rebuilding a neglected and dysfuntional party organization and a 50 state strategy do these people not get? Money is to political insiders what sound bites are to political dummies -- the only thing they can wrap their pea brains around when substance baffles them. 

audrey wrote "You seem to be obsessed with Lincoln and Roosevelt."

The two of them mean nothing to me.  I am strictly interested in the impeachment of Bush, as I explained above in painful detail.  An argument must cohere logically and be consistent to be valid.  I've been pointing out some apparent inconsistencies, nothing more.

Republicans are totally disillusioned with their candidates.  WE'RE NOT!:

Coulda fooled me. 

I've been pointing out some apparent inconsistencies, nothing more.

Apprarent only to you, apparently. 

Well, IMO all 8 dems are ready to be President in '08, no matter their age or how long they served.

The one thing we should thank Bush for is that he's lowered the bar so that anyone is ready. Who could do worse than he?

158.

 with the Democrats saddled by a hapless party chairman, Howard Dean, successor to Terry McAuliffe, who first brought the Democrats to financial parity.

Whoa horse! A total lie from a right wing paper. Time to go chip in a few more bucks to Howard's DNC.

154.

Next time I'll refrain from playing by my rules and asking you a question.  Happy ?

(and I also set my scroll button to advance upwards rather than dowwards, so I'll never sin again by my missing a response that DFA posted before my question)

mea culpas into eterni----------------------

Sitka wrote "Apprarent only to you, apparently."

Because you say so?  Never mind.  I take back every single thing I said.  Now buzz off, loser.  If you want to play devil's idiot, you'll have find another straight man.  Explaining to you is like playing the "why?" game with a 5 year old.

Tom Bearse
Mon, 12/03/07
1:41 pm

Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds....it doesn't follow that because others weren't impeached for their "high crimes and misdemeanors" that we shouldn't impeach current or future officeholders for theirs.

Your 'Standard" would make it impossible to do so.

Because you say so?

No, because not one person has agreed with you. Therefor it is apparent only to you. But that's all you need, apparently.

Because you say so?

No, because not one person has agreed with you. Therefor it is apparent only to you. But that's all you need, apparently.

* rdorgan
Mon, 12/03/07
1:58 pm

Ask away....but I'll decide whether it's worth answering. And yes, you can blame the blog clock for having to scroll backward all the time.

DFA IS TECHNICALLY INCOMPETENT/

Indy wrote "it doesn't follow that because others weren't impeached for their 'high crimes and misdemeanors' that we shouldn't impeach current or future officeholders for theirs."

In a system of government in which leaders are popularly elected in election cycles by Constitutional provision, and not overthrown violently or by judicial fiat, there is, in fact, a reason why the impeachment  power of Congress must be invoked with the utmost caution.

Impeachment has become a craze in the modern political era.  Do you mean to tell me that during the reign of a string of mediocre past presidents, there was no legitimate reason to impeach more than one in the country's 220 year history as a representative democracy, that is, until the TV and talk show age of participatory democracy dawned with the election of President Clinton, viscerally hated as he was by right wing bozos?  What an odd coincience.

Free elections are a valuable hedge against tyranny and the abuse of power.  In fact, they would have been useful in 2004, after fully four years of the abuses which people now are alleging to be impeachable offenses.  We should try and make use of them for that purpose.

Indy Steve
Mon, 12/03/07
1:56 pm

Here's an idea that could make everyone happy.......

Instead of making a cash contribution to DFA, you go to Burlington and fix the clock? 

Tom --   uh...where would I go for a message on "DFA link" ?   Not familiar.

Sitka wrote "No, because not one person has agreed with you."

Who are all the people that have agreed with you that it is not apparently apparent?

Sam wrote "where would I go for a message on "DFA link" ?   Not familiar."

The link is right at the top of this page.  Use it, go to your account, and go to your messages.

Impeachment has become a craze in the modern political era.

Poor Nixon. But what he would have been impeached, for and what Clinton was impeached for, were trifles compared to what Bush has done to harm the nation and subvert the Constitution.

Sitka
Mon, 12/03/07
2:05 pm

Pay for my expenses and I'm on my way today!

Pay for my expenses and I'm on my way today!

If I cared enough about the clock to complain about it incessantly in caps, I would.

BTW. Your "boycott" was a very short one. Welcome back.

Who are all the people that have agreed with you that it is not apparently apparent?

If you don't yet realize that everyone has been disagreeing with you about impeachment and your specious reasoning, you probably never will. 

Where have all the journalists gone?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/3/14620/4137 

Sitka wrote "If you don't yet realize that everyone has been disagreeing with you about impeachment and your specious reasoning, you probably never will."

Not only don't I realize that everyone has been disagreeing with me, but not everyone has disagreed with me. 

I've coined a new term for your declarations: Sitkafacts.  I'm confident it will be a handy addition to the blog glossary in the future.

Not only don't I realize that everyone has been disagreeing with me, but not everyone has disagreed with me.

Well, "everyone" does cover a lot of ground. Let's narrow it down. Who has agreed with your Tommylogic?  

Sitka wrote "Well, 'everyone' does cover a lot of ground. Let's narrow it down. Who has agreed with your Tommylogic?"

I'm not speaking for them, so you'll have to read with comprehension.

I'm not speaking for them, so you'll have to read with comprehension.

I see. Is it a silent majority or minority who agree with you? 

LOL! I'm crossing my own picket line! Scab...Leaving now! Shall I give you my paypal account name to deposit funds?

Shall I give you my paypal account name to deposit funds?

You may need it yourself after you get back from fixing the blog clock. 

Here's Arthur Frommer ranting on corporate jets and how much of the crowded skies they usurp:

Nov 27, 2007
For what conceivable reason do we continue to permit corporate jets to fill up our dangerously overcrowded skies?
They account for 10% of all air traffic in the country as a whole. In certain limited areas of America, they account for nearly 30% of all air traffic. Their numbers are constantly growing, as "fractional jets," "charter jets," and "air taxis" join the fleets already owned and operated by the Fortune 500 corporations. They, the sleek private jets, are especially favored by hedge fund executives, those privileged gents paying tax rates of only 15% on their salaries and therefore awash with money.

http://www.frommers.com/blog/

(You may have to scroll to Nov 27.)

And an even better one on air passenger bill of rights:
snip to:
...In America we guarantee better treatment of animals being sent to the slaughterhouse than we do human passengers on airplanes. As for me, I won't even insist on still another provision of the cattle code, that our herd health be provided with protection from disease and access to veterinary care.

http://www.frommers.com/blog/

(Also Nov 27)

Impeach, keep it simple.  Restore HB, rescind the WPA and fascist Patriot Act and try these buzzards for crimes against humanity and for the dismantling of our Constitution.

If we don't do this, we can say goodbye to this republic, especially if  Clinton or a repug is elected.  

Some people here need eyeglasses.

US intel is now saying that Iran halted work on nuclear weapons back in 2003.

6 weeks ago Bush was conjuring up images of mushroom clouds and armagheddon....

Oct. 17, 2007

U.S. President George W. Bush warned on Wednesday a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War III as he tried to shore up international opposition to Tehran amid Russian skepticism over its nuclear ambitions.

"If Iran had a nuclear weapon, it'd be a dangerous threat to world peace," Bush said. "So I told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested" in ensuring Iran not gain the capacity to develop such weapons.

"I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously," he said.

So who's left that takes this guy seriously? 

197.

Sitka
Mon, 12/03/07
2:49 pm

US intel is now saying that Iran halted work on nuclear weapons back in 2003.

6 weeks ago Bush was conjuring up images of mushroom clouds and armagheddon....
........
So who's left that takes this guy seriously?
---------

...lol, I've noticed that news too.

Strategy to handle Iran's nucular problem has been changed overnight BOLDLY, AGGRESSIVELY and UNCOMPROMISINGLY.

Curious what exactly made this administration look so funny?

Which of these stories.......

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A new U.S. intelligence report says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and it remains on hold, contradicting the Bush administration's earlier assertion that Tehran was intent on developing a bomb.

Curious what exactly made this administration look so funny?

Funny as rubber vomit and a whoopee cushion. 

I have told you all all along that the threats against Iran were to warn them off attacking the bases with missiles.

198.

seashell :-)
Mon, 12/03/07
2:58 pm


Impeach, keep it simple. Restore HB, rescind the WPA and fascist Patriot Act and try these buzzards for crimes against humanity and for the dismantling of our Constitution.

If we don't do this, we can say goodbye to this republic, especially if Clinton or a repug is elected.

Some people here need eyeglasses.
--------

I was reading up thread discussion on impeachment.
Could not get rid of impression that it is late, too late for that.

Even some months ago I would undoubtedly support such an actions...., today, imo, it is late.

Reality and American public along, I think, passed by the urgency of impeachment. People starting to realize that there is much deeper NEEDS of the current moment, very little (if anyhow) related to President's persona.

Our lifetime (almost..., lol) profi. has been late AGAIN, they can't catch up with the NEEDS of the real life.
Why? They probably think harder now about themselves, about their own "non-professional"...lol, future rather then about those NEEDS.

Sitka wrote "Is it a silent majority or minority who agree with you?"

No.  I see you ignored my advice.

There's a serious flaw with Sitkafacts.  The blog comments are a public record.  Your fatuous interpretation of them isn't doing anything to change them.  

I don't what the explanation is, but there's a new thread.

Joan....148

come on, we're having a discussion. Nobody is throwing rocks, especially Deaniac to Deaniac.
I stated that I was here to reform the Party and not to make excuses for them. I would have no idea why you are here, so I was not being personal.

If I may, you do take the Party position on impeachment. I disagree with that. Our Costitution is what we are, passed along for each of us to protect, not to be a convenient piece of paper, or like our leader reportedly called it a GD piece of paper. The Dems need to get Hr333 back on the table, impeach Cheney, gather more info and support along the way, and they need to stand up to the criticism which might be there at first.

The voters didn't specifically vote for impeachment although today they might. They wanted the war over but our leader is not interested in what we want. A perfect situation for impeachment.

Just for the record, I am not in favor of impeachment of anyone for two reasons:

OK. so one person agrees with Tom. 

 One is the time factor -- Congress would not have had the time to do anything else except impeachment;

What else are they doing that's important besides confirming Bush's new torture chief?

Two is because the voters who voted in Dems in 2006 did not vote Democrat so that they could spend their time impeaching.

I for voted for Dems in 2006 and that's exactlty what I wanted them to do. Seems like there are many others of that mind too. 

However, I may not vote Dems in 2008, if they are any otherchoices on my ballot besides TweedleRepub and TweedleDem.

I have told you all all along that the threats against Iran were to warn them off attacking the bases with missiles. 

I'll take your fword or having said it even though I don't buy it. Why would Iran attack US bases? They aren't REALLY nuts like our NeoCons. 

Sitka wrote "OK. so one person agrees with Tom."

Beware of falling Sitkafacts.

The blog comments are a public record.

Which , for some reason, Tommylogic can intone, but can't cite. 

Beware of falling Sitkafacts.

Beware of self serving tommylogic. 

Sitka wrote "Which , for some reason, Tommylogic can intone, but can't cite."

No, I'm relying on you to do it.  I've seen some hopeful signs.  Come on, everyone.  Read along with Sitka.

I'm going to the new thread. Please don't pull a fred and drag your inane anger onto it.

Sitka wrote "Beware of self serving tommylogic."

Come on, now.  No reason to be so peevish.  You found out you were wrong by one person.  Why not read some more comments?  There's 200+ of them.  It's a project you can really sink your teeth into.

new thread