Your repetition of lame right wing talking points, that's what. Say a coal plant would have to spend $5,000,000 to make a 20% reduction in emissions. But what if they could make an equal reduction in total emissions by buying $1,000,000 worth of Prius's? That's what carbon credits are for: reducing total emissions by allowing polluting companies to improve their infrastructure over time, and getting us moving on the path to a greener economy.
The DLC hasn't learned their lesson a single iota from 2000 or 2004: they still triangulate, sell out the middle class, act as Bud Lite Republicans, and concentrate on "battleground states" while ceeding the rest to Republicans.
And the reason why it hasn't worked is that the DLC doesn't actually care about winning more elections, only enough to keep them in power. Kerry might have lost in 2004, but Al From made a fuckton of money.
And that's why another Nader run wont accomplish anything, because he doesn't threaten the DLC status quo: he only runs as a spoiler, he's not building a movement for change.
Let's make it simple. No Nader, No President Bush.
Or as I said upthread, Nader isn't building a movement to challenge the status quo (a la Howard Dean), he just runs as a spoiler every four years. He hasn't even picked a party yet to run under.
Conservatism is a failed ideology which has joined communism in the trash heap of history.
I like Conservatism: the rationalization of selfish elitism.
Yes, Nader did some great things for the consumers back in the 60's. But O.J. Simpson also had a great football career and made some funny movies before 1994. Just because you had some great accomplishments in the pass doesn't mean you get a free pass today.
Let's do a little comparison contrast between Ralph Nader and Howard Dean: in 2004 Dean ran a populist campaign as a Democrat against the DLC establishment and for "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." And he was promptly lynched by the DLC establishment and the mass market media. After he lost the primary, he ran for chair of the Democratic National Committee and won. His big contribution has been the "50 state strategy", where the DNC started spending money at the local level, giving money to places that had been seeded to the Republicans for decades, with the goal of fielding a good challenger for every seat in every race in the country. The Democratic Leadership Council sneered at Dean, wanting to continue spending money on "battleground states" and on their "50 + 1" strategy, or going for just over 50% of the vote. You know, the strategy that cost Dems control of Congress for 14 years and a couple presidential elections.
But when waves of Republicans were hit with scandal, there were Democratic challengers already in the bullpen thanks to Dean; a large part of the credit for retaking Congress in 2006 belongs to him. You further see validation of the 50 state strategy in the Democratic primary this year: Obama spends his money on local field offices and get-out-the-vote efforts in every state, and Hillary spends her money on consultants ($4 million a month for Mark Penn alone) and focusing on the big states. And since Super Tuesday, Obama has crushed her in every state by 20 points or more.
Whereas Nader ran under the Green Party in 2000 claiming that there was no difference between Gore and Bush. Really? A man who spent his entire adult life in public service vs a man who was a drunken frat boy until age 40. A Democrat who lined up with most of the Green Party's platform, vs a Republican that was the polar opposite of just about everything they believed in. No one knew what a fascist Bush would turn out to be, but it should have been obvious to everyone in 2000 that he was an uninterested, incompetent tool.
And he apparently clings to this delusion to this day. You think so Ralph? Gore would have pulled troops out of Afghanistan to launch a bogus invasion into Iraq? Gore would have argued that he was above the law, had the right to hold American citizens in jail without charges indefinitely, would have used torture on detainees?
And unlike Dean, who is leading a long term effort to reform the Democratic Party, Nader seems to think his job is to run as a spoiler every four years in the presidential race, and he hasn't even picked a party yet this time! Why didn't he run for Congress against a corrupt Democrat, like Ned Lamont did in Connecticut? If he lived in San Francisco and ran against Nancy "impeachment is off the table" Pelosi, I'd vote for him over that sellout bitch in a heartbeat.
Nader doesn't challenge the corrupt DLC establishment, he just throws the race to the GOP. And if this election came down to McCain vs Hillary, he would have a real chance of putting another warmonger up to his eyeballs in special interests into the Oval Office, again.
Nader needs to take a lesson from Ron Paul on how to stand up for your beliefs and challenge the status quo without fucking over the country with an ego trip.
Telco: "Alright then, but only if you pay us for it."
What's funny is that the FBI has had it's wiretaps disconnected because they weren't paying the bills. So much for the "patriotism" of the phone companies. So much so much for spying being a "life or death matter" for the Administration.
The ipod wasn't the mp3 player to beat for years...
Uh, no - the iPod was the player to beat the day it was announced. It was the first player to use 5 gigabyte 1.8" hard drives while everything else used tiny amounts of flash memory or used big and heavy desktop hard drives. It also used a 400 Mpbs Firewire interface while everything else used 11 Mbps Usb 1.1 or even parallel. Combine that with a good interface and good integration and you had a product that was far ahead of the competition.
Now everything uses USB 2.0 and the same storage media, so there is little difference in the physical size/capacity anymore, but that wasn't the case to begin with.
Jesus, when's that broad going to croak? She's been 70 going on 150 since the comic started.
Oh, she did, about 10-15 years ago, of cancer. John "fucktard" Byrne brought her back along with Norman Osbourne, the one major bad guy to actually stay dead. Norman, Peter's most hated enemy, "hid out" in Europe for five years after he died in the 70's. To make that storyline not seem unbelievably shitty, they came up with something worse: the Aunt May that died of cancer was actually a clone made by Osbourne to mess with Peter's head.
Marvel's goal for the Spider-Man line seems to be to try a dig a new hole every time they hit rock bottom. They followed up that clusterfuck by having Gwen Stacey's mutant kids come back and attack Spidie. The ones she had with Norman Osbourne during an affair they had while she was a teenager. Before he dumped her off a bridge.
And now if the parent is right, they've followed that storyline up by having the world forget about the marriage between Peter Parker and Mary Jane.
You are only seeing what you want to see. You look at American comics and only see the tired superhero genre while looking over sees and seeing avant garde literature. Just like an old film buff - they look at the past and only see Hitchcock's work, not Ed Wood's. They look at the present and only see Uwe Boll, missing Christopher Nolan.
I've owned two cats in my adult life. That leaves me one step away from being an animal abuser? I have a son. I'm just one step away from a child abuser, and should be equated with child abusers? And I've had sex with a woman (see above), does this leave me one step away from being a rapist and misogynist?
I suppose I could see it that way, if I was a complete moron. Here, let's add a few details to make your analogy remotely applicable: you're also a bipolar meth addict who was sexually abused as a child. That puts you much closer to abusing animals, beating your son and forcing yourself on women.
Dude, give it up. Name me a single thing that comes within a hundred yards of liberals being as full of crap on an issue as much as conservatives have been full of crap on the following issues:
The sin of draft dodging when Clinton was running against Herbert Walker Bush, vs when George W. Bush was running against McCain, Gore, and Kerry.
The importance of having served in the military when Clinton was running against Herbert Walker Bush, vs when George W. Bush was running against McCain, Gore, and Kerry.
How much responsibility the president bears for the actions of law enforcement agencies on Ruby Ridge (when H.W. Bush had been president for three and a half years) and Waco (when Clinton had been in office for 38 days).
Whitewater vs Harken Energy.
How serious lying under oath is (which Clinton didn't even do) versus Scooter Libby.
How Clinton "disgraced the office" by having an affair vs Gengrich and Vitter, just to name two of many Republicans who have had affairs while in office.
"Cutting and running" from areas where we've deployed troops on Somalia in 1993 and Haiti in 1994, vs Iraq today.
Surveillance: the conservatives that freaked the fuck out over Carnivore and the Clipper Chip (both of which would have required the use of warrants) vs the far larger NSA warrantless wiretapping.
Impeachment. Republicans impeached Clinton...because they wanted to impeach him, and settled for a manufactured perjury charge after countless investigations of Whitewater turned up nothing. Whereas the Bush Administration breaks the law (warrantless wiretapping, using federal agencies for partisan gain), subverts the separation of powers (ignores power of the purse, signing statemnts), and has broken four amendments (searches and seizures, due process, cruel and unusual punishment, speedy trials).
As a moderate liberal I find it frustrating that the vast majority of "liberals" don't see the hypocrisy in their condemnation and virulent tirades to shut down or muzzle Limbaugh.
And I love the hypocrisy of those defending Limbaugh by shouting down his critics with cries of "free speech".
Remember when Bill Bennett, professional moralizer, was outed as a compulsive gambler? Libertarians were the first ones to rush to his defense, despite the fact that Bennett's entire career has been based around telling other people how to live their lives, the compete antithesis to Libertarian ideals.
The point they missed out on is that is perfectly fine to have sympathy for Limbaugh and Bennett the compulsive addicts, but Limbaugh and Bennett the gigantic hypocrites deserve nothing but scorn and ridicule. And yes, Limbaugh is the epitome of hypocrisy on drugs:
"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up." -- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript. http://www.takebackthemedia.com/gophotwrush.html
"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use, too many whites are getting away with drug sales, too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too." -- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript. http://www.takebackthemedia.com/gophotwrush.html
"It's kind of like sentencing. A lot of people say that we have a heavy sentence for this crime and a light sentence for another crime, and what we ought to do is reduce the heavy sentence so it's more in line with the other. Wrong. In most cases we ought to increase the light sentence and make it compatible with the heavy sentence, and be serious about punishment because we are becoming too tolerant as a society, folks, especially of crime, in too many parts of the country." -- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript. http://www.takebackthemedia.com/gophotwrush.html
You claim he is wrong 100% of the time.
No I didn't. I said "anytime he opens his mouth he is very likely to be 100% full of crap."
You think Republican = bad
There you go: just like Rush, you make stuff up.
Democrats routinely do virtually everything the Republicans do.
No, they don't. There are some corporate tools that need to be primaried out of office, like Feinstein and Rockefeller. Take FISA for example: both those Democrats along with a dozen others voted for telecom immunity, but 31 Democrats voted against it. Whereas ALL the Republicans that showed up voted for it.
I don't think Al Franken is wrong 100% of the time (I actually lean closer to Al than Rush, but that's beside the point).
That's the difference between liberals and conservatives: after decades of vicious attacks on them, liberals by and large make sure their shit is on point. Whereas conservatives invariably toe the ideological line, facts be damned. Case in point: single payer health care. It costs far less money and provides better care than that which private insurance provides, period. Yet they continue to scream "socialism" and fight it.
Indeed. Looks like the Democratic primary race is afflicted with that evil as well.
Examples?
As if there's a nickel's worth difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Sorry, but Nader was a complete fucking idiot to have said that back in 2000, and that was before 7 years of Bushco's incompetent fascism.
You haven't listened to much Liberal radio lately, have you?
All the time. The part that you don't realize is that due to decades of vicious right wing attacks, liberals by and large make sure their shit is on point. Whereas the right wing is just full of shit.
They would have to because it would be little more then a political witch hunt.
Huh, and I was just talking about wingnut hypocrisy, too. You talk about how Clinton was impeached for lying under oath (which he didn't do) and two minutes later you blow off any impeachment of Bush and Cheney (who have broken many laws and Constitutional amendments) as "political witch hunt"? You're even faster than Pudge. You need to be taken out back and pistol whipped for being intolerably full of shit. Repeatedly.
If either Bush or Cheney were impeached, arrested and locked up I bet the other would pardon him right before he left office.
Easy. First impeach Cheney (you can't pardon someone who's been impeached) and then impeach Bush before confirming a replacement VP.
Then Pelosi takes office as President, and to prove that it wasn't a partisan power grab she appoints an independent big on accountability to be Vice President, then resigns herself and gets back in the House in a special election.
Ken Star was told what to investigate. In two occasions he asked for leave to investigate things uncovered but not directly related to his investigation. Clinton was impeached because he intentionally lied in a court of law when he was the chief law enforcement officer in the land, not because of some vast right wing conspiracy. He was since, punished by that court for those offenses, lost his law license and paid fines in one case and a settlement in another relating to it.
That's the right wing story alright. But as is usually the case, the right wing's story and reality have little in common. Short story: unless you could read Clinton's mind, there's no way you could know if he lied. And even if he did lie through his teeth about Monica, it wasn't perjury since it would have to be relevant to the case at hand, and the judge ruled that whatever happened between Clinton and Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case.
And nothing proves the right wing to be full of shit on the subject of perjury than Scooter Libby. Its the same as how terrible avoiding the draft was and how important military service was when Clinton was running against Herbert Walker Bush, compared to when George W. Bush was running against McCain, Gore and Kerry. But then, if they weren't massive hypocrites, they wouldn't be Republicans now would they?
Too bad Clinton didn't lie then. Besides, nothing has proved Republicans to be full of shit about "lying under oath" than Scooter Libby. Some of the same Republicans (like Fred Thompson) that voted to impeach Clinton also called for a pardon for Scooter Libby (like Fred Thompson). Some even called passionately for the "rule of law" in the same speech that they also passionately called for a pardon of Scooter Libby (like Fred Thompson).
Impeachment proceedings take so long that it would not be worth it.
Not at all. They could have him impeached and removed from office in a matter of minutes, for we had more than enough evidence to remove him from office three years ago. And that's just from the stuff they've proudly admitted to, and say they will keep doing if necessary: torture and warrantless wiretapping.
Unless they see a threat to lives of congress critters, they won't do a job of arresting anybody.
Actually he can, under inherent contempt. What's sad is that committee chairmen like Conyers had to be told about it by bloggers. What's more sad is that they still haven't used it.
I bet it would be one helluva gunfight to watch DC cops battle it out with Secret Service. I can see the headlines in Fox TV now: "President under attack by crazy cops. 11 dead. News at 11." Cheney goes into the bunker and issues a statement that DC cops are Iran's handymen and that we must bomb Iran now if we are to live.
I wouldn't bet too much on the DC cops, unless they have some RV's a la Die Hard. And even then there are a number of gun placements on the Capitol and the White House.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it was Gore's ultra-liberal running mate?
If you think Lieberman is ultra-liberal, you need to take a nice long vactation to North Korea to see what the left wing actually looks like.
and what does this have to do with anything?
Your repetition of lame right wing talking points, that's what. Say a coal plant would have to spend $5,000,000 to make a 20% reduction in emissions. But what if they could make an equal reduction in total emissions by buying $1,000,000 worth of Prius's? That's what carbon credits are for: reducing total emissions by allowing polluting companies to improve their infrastructure over time, and getting us moving on the path to a greener economy.
The DLC hasn't learned their lesson a single iota from 2000 or 2004: they still triangulate, sell out the middle class, act as Bud Lite Republicans, and concentrate on "battleground states" while ceeding the rest to Republicans.
And the reason why it hasn't worked is that the DLC doesn't actually care about winning more elections, only enough to keep them in power. Kerry might have lost in 2004, but Al From made a fuckton of money.
And that's why another Nader run wont accomplish anything, because he doesn't threaten the DLC status quo: he only runs as a spoiler, he's not building a movement for change.
Let's make it simple. No Nader, No President Bush.
Or as I said upthread, Nader isn't building a movement to challenge the status quo (a la Howard Dean), he just runs as a spoiler every four years. He hasn't even picked a party yet to run under.
Conservatism is a failed ideology which has joined communism in the trash heap of history.
I like Conservatism: the rationalization of selfish elitism.
Yes, Nader did some great things for the consumers back in the 60's. But O.J. Simpson also had a great football career and made some funny movies before 1994. Just because you had some great accomplishments in the pass doesn't mean you get a free pass today.
Let's do a little comparison contrast between Ralph Nader and Howard Dean: in 2004 Dean ran a populist campaign as a Democrat against the DLC establishment and for "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." And he was promptly lynched by the DLC establishment and the mass market media. After he lost the primary, he ran for chair of the Democratic National Committee and won. His big contribution has been the "50 state strategy", where the DNC started spending money at the local level, giving money to places that had been seeded to the Republicans for decades, with the goal of fielding a good challenger for every seat in every race in the country. The Democratic Leadership Council sneered at Dean, wanting to continue spending money on "battleground states" and on their "50 + 1" strategy, or going for just over 50% of the vote. You know, the strategy that cost Dems control of Congress for 14 years and a couple presidential elections.
But when waves of Republicans were hit with scandal, there were Democratic challengers already in the bullpen thanks to Dean; a large part of the credit for retaking Congress in 2006 belongs to him. You further see validation of the 50 state strategy in the Democratic primary this year: Obama spends his money on local field offices and get-out-the-vote efforts in every state, and Hillary spends her money on consultants ($4 million a month for Mark Penn alone) and focusing on the big states. And since Super Tuesday, Obama has crushed her in every state by 20 points or more.
Whereas Nader ran under the Green Party in 2000 claiming that there was no difference between Gore and Bush. Really? A man who spent his entire adult life in public service vs a man who was a drunken frat boy until age 40. A Democrat who lined up with most of the Green Party's platform, vs a Republican that was the polar opposite of just about everything they believed in. No one knew what a fascist Bush would turn out to be, but it should have been obvious to everyone in 2000 that he was an uninterested, incompetent tool.
And he apparently clings to this delusion to this day. You think so Ralph? Gore would have pulled troops out of Afghanistan to launch a bogus invasion into Iraq? Gore would have argued that he was above the law, had the right to hold American citizens in jail without charges indefinitely, would have used torture on detainees?
And unlike Dean, who is leading a long term effort to reform the Democratic Party, Nader seems to think his job is to run as a spoiler every four years in the presidential race, and he hasn't even picked a party yet this time! Why didn't he run for Congress against a corrupt Democrat, like Ned Lamont did in Connecticut? If he lived in San Francisco and ran against Nancy "impeachment is off the table" Pelosi, I'd vote for him over that sellout bitch in a heartbeat.
Nader doesn't challenge the corrupt DLC establishment, he just throws the race to the GOP. And if this election came down to McCain vs Hillary, he would have a real chance of putting another warmonger up to his eyeballs in special interests into the Oval Office, again.
Nader needs to take a lesson from Ron Paul on how to stand up for your beliefs and challenge the status quo without fucking over the country with an ego trip.
The ipod wasn't the mp3 player to beat for years...
Uh, no - the iPod was the player to beat the day it was announced. It was the first player to use 5 gigabyte 1.8" hard drives while everything else used tiny amounts of flash memory or used big and heavy desktop hard drives. It also used a 400 Mpbs Firewire interface while everything else used 11 Mbps Usb 1.1 or even parallel. Combine that with a good interface and good integration and you had a product that was far ahead of the competition.
Now everything uses USB 2.0 and the same storage media, so there is little difference in the physical size/capacity anymore, but that wasn't the case to begin with.
Jesus, when's that broad going to croak? She's been 70 going on 150 since the comic started.
Oh, she did, about 10-15 years ago, of cancer. John "fucktard" Byrne brought her back along with Norman Osbourne, the one major bad guy to actually stay dead. Norman, Peter's most hated enemy, "hid out" in Europe for five years after he died in the 70's. To make that storyline not seem unbelievably shitty, they came up with something worse: the Aunt May that died of cancer was actually a clone made by Osbourne to mess with Peter's head.
Marvel's goal for the Spider-Man line seems to be to try a dig a new hole every time they hit rock bottom. They followed up that clusterfuck by having Gwen Stacey's mutant kids come back and attack Spidie. The ones she had with Norman Osbourne during an affair they had while she was a teenager. Before he dumped her off a bridge.
And now if the parent is right, they've followed that storyline up by having the world forget about the marriage between Peter Parker and Mary Jane.
You are only seeing what you want to see. You look at American comics and only see the tired superhero genre while looking over sees and seeing avant garde literature. Just like an old film buff - they look at the past and only see Hitchcock's work, not Ed Wood's. They look at the present and only see Uwe Boll, missing Christopher Nolan.
Straying blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah well.
Couldn't come up with a single example. Put up or shut the fuck up, bitch.
Yup, entirely vapid post, you got it right.
You think so, Mr. Pot?
I've owned two cats in my adult life. That leaves me one step away from being an animal abuser? I have a son. I'm just one step away from a child abuser, and should be equated with child abusers? And I've had sex with a woman (see above), does this leave me one step away from being a rapist and misogynist?
I suppose I could see it that way, if I was a complete moron. Here, let's add a few details to make your analogy remotely applicable: you're also a bipolar meth addict who was sexually abused as a child. That puts you much closer to abusing animals, beating your son and forcing yourself on women.
As a moderate liberal
Liar.
As a moderate liberal I find it frustrating that the vast majority of "liberals" don't see the hypocrisy in their condemnation and virulent tirades to shut down or muzzle Limbaugh.
And I love the hypocrisy of those defending Limbaugh by shouting down his critics with cries of "free speech".
The point they missed out on is that is perfectly fine to have sympathy for Limbaugh and Bennett the compulsive addicts, but Limbaugh and Bennett the gigantic hypocrites deserve nothing but scorn and ridicule. And yes, Limbaugh is the epitome of hypocrisy on drugs: You claim he is wrong 100% of the time.
No I didn't. I said "anytime he opens his mouth he is very likely to be 100% full of crap."
You think Republican = bad
There you go: just like Rush, you make stuff up.
Democrats routinely do virtually everything the Republicans do.
No, they don't. There are some corporate tools that need to be primaried out of office, like Feinstein and Rockefeller. Take FISA for example: both those Democrats along with a dozen others voted for telecom immunity, but 31 Democrats voted against it. Whereas ALL the Republicans that showed up voted for it.
I don't think Al Franken is wrong 100% of the time (I actually lean closer to Al than Rush, but that's beside the point).
That's the difference between liberals and conservatives: after decades of vicious attacks on them, liberals by and large make sure their shit is on point. Whereas conservatives invariably toe the ideological line, facts be damned. Case in point: single payer health care. It costs far less money and provides better care than that which private insurance provides, period. Yet they continue to scream "socialism" and fight it.
Indeed. Looks like the Democratic primary race is afflicted with that evil as well.
Examples?
As if there's a nickel's worth difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Sorry, but Nader was a complete fucking idiot to have said that back in 2000, and that was before 7 years of Bushco's incompetent fascism.
You haven't listened to much Liberal radio lately, have you?
All the time. The part that you don't realize is that due to decades of vicious right wing attacks, liberals by and large make sure their shit is on point. Whereas the right wing is just full of shit.
Ahh, were you poor wingnut modderes feeling victimized this morning?
I'm surprised to see about a Slashdot story on software making problems for hardware that doesn't use the word "bricked".
They would have to because it would be little more then a political witch hunt.
Huh, and I was just talking about wingnut hypocrisy, too. You talk about how Clinton was impeached for lying under oath (which he didn't do) and two minutes later you blow off any impeachment of Bush and Cheney (who have broken many laws and Constitutional amendments) as "political witch hunt"? You're even faster than Pudge. You need to be taken out back and pistol whipped for being intolerably full of shit. Repeatedly.
If either Bush or Cheney were impeached, arrested and locked up I bet the other would pardon him right before he left office.
Easy. First impeach Cheney (you can't pardon someone who's been impeached) and then impeach Bush before confirming a replacement VP.
Then Pelosi takes office as President, and to prove that it wasn't a partisan power grab she appoints an independent big on accountability to be Vice President, then resigns herself and gets back in the House in a special election.
Ken Star was told what to investigate. In two occasions he asked for leave to investigate things uncovered but not directly related to his investigation. Clinton was impeached because he intentionally lied in a court of law when he was the chief law enforcement officer in the land, not because of some vast right wing conspiracy. He was since, punished by that court for those offenses, lost his law license and paid fines in one case and a settlement in another relating to it.
That's the right wing story alright. But as is usually the case, the right wing's story and reality have little in common. Short story: unless you could read Clinton's mind, there's no way you could know if he lied. And even if he did lie through his teeth about Monica, it wasn't perjury since it would have to be relevant to the case at hand, and the judge ruled that whatever happened between Clinton and Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case.
And nothing proves the right wing to be full of shit on the subject of perjury than Scooter Libby. Its the same as how terrible avoiding the draft was and how important military service was when Clinton was running against Herbert Walker Bush, compared to when George W. Bush was running against McCain, Gore and Kerry. But then, if they weren't massive hypocrites, they wouldn't be Republicans now would they?
They didn't prosecute Clinton for the sex, they prosecuted him for lying under oath.
No, they prosecuted him because they wanted to prosecute him, because he didn't lie.
Or lying under oath.
Too bad Clinton didn't lie then. Besides, nothing has proved Republicans to be full of shit about "lying under oath" than Scooter Libby. Some of the same Republicans (like Fred Thompson) that voted to impeach Clinton also called for a pardon for Scooter Libby (like Fred Thompson). Some even called passionately for the "rule of law" in the same speech that they also passionately called for a pardon of Scooter Libby (like Fred Thompson).
Impeachment proceedings take so long that it would not be worth it.
Not at all. They could have him impeached and removed from office in a matter of minutes, for we had more than enough evidence to remove him from office three years ago. And that's just from the stuff they've proudly admitted to, and say they will keep doing if necessary: torture and warrantless wiretapping.
No, we need Kurt Russell. Put him in his Snake Plissken outfit and give him a sub-machine gun and they will come as quietly as he will let them.
Nah, I'll take Todd from Soldier. When asked about what he'd do with the heavily armed guards protecting the fascists, he'd say "I'll kill them all".
Unless they see a threat to lives of congress critters, they won't do a job of arresting anybody.
Actually he can, under inherent contempt. What's sad is that committee chairmen like Conyers had to be told about it by bloggers. What's more sad is that they still haven't used it.
I bet it would be one helluva gunfight to watch DC cops battle it out with Secret Service.
I can see the headlines in Fox TV now: "President under attack by crazy cops. 11 dead. News at 11." Cheney goes into the bunker and issues a statement that DC cops are Iran's handymen and that we must bomb Iran now if we are to live.
I wouldn't bet too much on the DC cops, unless they have some RV's a la Die Hard. And even then there are a number of gun placements on the Capitol and the White House.