Industry news
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dan Kimmel
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:59 am Post subject: Re: bush,jr down 2 more points in another poll! |
 |
|
"Don Gabacho" <jpastore@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
news:1180795317.396960.245160@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Dan Kimmel wrote:
"Don Gabacho" <jpastore@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2002/06/03/AR2005112200800.html
Senator ERVIN'S committee uncovered much wrongdoing -- just as
committees
such as those led by Henry Waxman and Patrick Leahy are doing. Senator
ERVIN'S committee did not vote on impeachment. They had no authority to
do
so so.
There you go again: No one has ever stated that they did "vote on
impeachment."
They, in summary, did however vote on whether "grounds for impeachment
existed or not."
All but one of the committee members found not only that the "grounds
for impeachment" existed but also concluded impeachment to be
imperative.
You are one very stubborn fool.
Why?
|
Because it's amusing to watch you make error after error and still not admit
it, even when it's pointed out to your repeatedly.
Here, why don't you get the Senate Watergate report so you can find out just
how far off base you are:
http://www.amazon.com/Senate-Watergate-Report-Committee-Initiated/dp/0786717092
And read the review analysing its contents. And then be man enough to admit
you were wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dan Kimmel
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:07 am Post subject: Re: But What Does It Say About Pelosi's Edict Of Keeping Imp |
|
|
"Don Gabacho" <jpastore@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
news:1180791778.308392.184250@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On Jun 2, 4:38 am, "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote:
"lo yeeOn" <acous...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:f3qk76$btu$1@reader2.panix.com...
Dan Kimmel wrote:
You are delusional. Look at how the Republics in Congress have done
everything they can to roadblock the Democratic agenda. They're
*still* supporting the war. The Democrats have slim majorities. In
the Senate it's ONE vote, and that one vote is that DINO Lieberman.
Sid has it exactly right. So long as the Republics continue to back
Bush, impeachment is a non-starter.
Impeachment is a *political* process, not a criminal one. You're
kidding yourself if you think Republican senators will act as
impartial jurors.
Any process, by nature, has a dynamic element to it.
With the impeachment process of Bush, if the people involved are doing
their jobs, there will be plenty of opportunity for the voters to put
enough pressure on their senators to do the right thing.
If we don't do anything, nothing will happen.
You can say I am ``delusional'' and ``Sid9 has it exactly right'' all
you want. But your argument is weak because you are oblivious to the
dynamic nature of the impeachment process.
That "dynamic" process worked so well in the vote on funding the war
that
the majority of Americans opposed, eh?
There were no hearings on the funding of the war that could engage the
American public.
|
You have GOT to be kidding. You're seriously arguing that the reason the
Congress caved into Bush is because they didn't hold *hearings*?
| Quote: |
There's a "weak argument" here, but it's not mine.
No. What's "weak" here is your head. Obviously too young to have
witnessed the Watergate Hearings, and too stupid on top of it, you
will not comprehend what lo yeeOn means by the "dynamics" of an
impeachment.
|
Not only did I witness them -- as you most obviously did not -- but I also
witnessed the Clinton Impeachment hearings where the "dynamic" in Congress
was completely opposite from what the public wanted. You are in so over
your head little boy that you should check with you parents about whether
you're allowed to play on their computer.
| Quote: |
The public's engagement with Erwin's Senate Select Committee was not
unlike the public's engagement with the Joe Lewis/Max Schmelling
Fight, when, no matter who you were or where you were, short of a
coffin, you were going to hear and be engaged by it as it unfolded. It
was that widespread and intense.
|
Yes, and those of us who were alive then and were riveted by know the
chairman's name was Sam ERVIN, not "Erwin" as you moronically claim even
though you've already been corrected several times.
| Quote: |
Likewise, the committee heard its audience driving them onward.
|
Worked so well when the country opposed the Clinton impeachment, eh?
| Quote: |
The only difference, in that regard, between the Lewis/Schmelling
figtht and the Erwin's Committee/Nixon fight was that the Committees
was not a few minute affair. It went on daily for weeks on end; with
the public's engaged interest in the affair not ebbing at all---quite
the contrary---even after the very opening of the hearings was like a
cannon shot.
I pity those who refuse to learn from their elders.
|
Well you're the perfect example of someone remaining steadfastly ignorant.
If you had read the Washington Post article I cited, you would have seen
that the hearings opened with a thud, and it was some time before the public
became interested.
Beyond that, it's a different television world. In 1973 -- I know, long
before you were born -- there were only three TV networks and they all
pre-empted their daytime programming to cover the hearings. As a result,
people watched because there was nothing else on.
Now it would be relegated to CSPAN or, at best, cable news channels and,
like Bush's war, would be largely ignored. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dan Kimmel
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:09 am Post subject: Re: But What Does It Say About Pelosi's Edict Of Keeping Imp |
|
|
"Don Gabacho" <jpastore@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
news:1180791936.763412.192990@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On May 31, 9:21 pm, "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote:
"Don Gabacho" <jpast...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
news:1180621418.572694.224850@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 30, 11:00 pm, "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote:
Impeachment is a *political* process, not a criminal one. You're
kidding
yourself if you think Republican senators will act as impartial
jurors.
Being investigated for "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not being
investigated for "high crimes and misdemeanors?"
It is a POLITICAL process, not a criminal one.
Please provide a specific definition of the phrase if you are arguing
otherwise.
What? They are your phrases. You define them.
|
The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not "my" phrase. It's in the
Constitution. YOU cited it in answer to my commonsense point that
impeachment is NOT a criminal process. So, since YOU think it's a criminal
proceeding, deficine with specificity the phrase "high crimes and
misdemeanors." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Don Gabacho
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 3:55 am Post subject: Re: But What Does It Say About Pelosi's Edict Of Keeping Imp |
|
|
On Jun 2, 5:09 pm, "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Don Gabacho" <jpast...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
news:1180791936.763412.192990@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 31, 9:21 pm, "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote:
"Don Gabacho" <jpast...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
news:1180621418.572694.224850@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 30, 11:00 pm, "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote:
Impeachment is a *political* process, not a criminal one. You're
kidding
yourself if you think Republican senators will act as impartial
jurors.
Being investigated for "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not being
investigated for "high crimes and misdemeanors?"
It is a POLITICAL process, not a criminal one.
Please provide a specific definition of the phrase if you are arguing
otherwise.
What? They are your phrases. You define them.
The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not "my" phrase. It's in the
Constitution. YOU cited it in answer to my commonsense point that
impeachment is NOT a criminal process. So, since YOU think it's a criminal
proceeding, deficine with specificity the phrase "high crimes and
misdemeanors."
|
You're not to bright are you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Don Gabacho
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 4:21 am Post subject: Re: But What Does It Say About Pelosi's Edict Of Keeping Imp |
|
|
On Jun 2, 5:07 pm, "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Don Gabacho" <jpast...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
news:1180791778.308392.184250@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 2, 4:38 am, "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote:
"lo yeeOn" <acous...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:f3qk76$btu$1@reader2.panix.com...
Dan Kimmel wrote:
You are delusional. Look at how the Republics in Congress have done
everything they can to roadblock the Democratic agenda. They're
*still* supporting the war. The Democrats have slim majorities. In
the Senate it's ONE vote, and that one vote is that DINO Lieberman.
Sid has it exactly right. So long as the Republics continue to back
Bush, impeachment is a non-starter.
Impeachment is a *political* process, not a criminal one. You're
kidding yourself if you think Republican senators will act as
impartial jurors.
Any process, by nature, has a dynamic element to it.
With the impeachment process of Bush, if the people involved are doing
their jobs, there will be plenty of opportunity for the voters to put
enough pressure on their senators to do the right thing.
If we don't do anything, nothing will happen.
You can say I am ``delusional'' and ``Sid9 has it exactly right'' all
you want. But your argument is weak because you are oblivious to the
dynamic nature of the impeachment process.
That "dynamic" process worked so well in the vote on funding the war
that
the majority of Americans opposed, eh?
There were no hearings on the funding of the war that could engage the
American public.
You have GOT to be kidding. You're seriously arguing that the reason the
Congress caved into Bush is because they didn't hold *hearings*?
|
I was explaining, as you had stated, "the majority of Americans," not
"Congress."
You have a serious problem keeping things straight. How many times,
for only one example I would say the Senate's "Committee" voted and
you would retort the "Senate" could not have?
| Quote: |
There's a "weak argument" here, but it's not mine.
No. What's "weak" here is your head. Obviously too young to have
witnessed the Watergate Hearings, and too stupid on top of it, you
will not comprehend what lo yeeOn means by the "dynamics" of an
impeachment.
Not only did I witness them -- as you most obviously did not --
|
:-)
| Quote: |
but I also
witnessed the Clinton Impeachment hearings where the "dynamic" in Congress
was completely opposite from what the public wanted.
|
Well, I didn't see that one. Not that I hadn 't been born yet, but I
was living in Mexico.
I did read enough about it to know that Clinton was railroaded by some
very nasty Republicans.
That railroading however was not what lo yeeOn was speaking of with
his having used the word "dynamic."
It was explained to you what he meant by it. You do not accept it any
more than you could accept that a Senate Committee is not the Senate,
that investigating for impeachment is not impeachment, etc.
You have a serious brain dysfunction.
| Quote: |
You are in so over
your head little boy that you should check with you parents about whether
you're allowed to play on their computer.
|
I wish.
| Quote: |
The public's engagement with Erwin's Senate Select Committee was not
unlike the public's engagement with the Joe Lewis/Max Schmelling
Fight, when, no matter who you were or where you were, short of a
coffin, you were going to hear and be engaged by it as it unfolded. It
was that widespread and intense.
Yes, and those of us who were alive then and were riveted by know the
chairman's name was Sam ERVIN, not "Erwin" as you moronically claim even
though you've already been corrected several times.
|
I made no such claim.
| Quote: |
Likewise, the committee heard its audience driving them onward.
Worked so well when the country opposed the Clinton impeachment, eh?
|
The subject is what io yeeOn meant by what he had said not your
bizarre tangent.
| Quote: |
The only difference, in that regard, between the Lewis/Schmelling
figtht and the Erwin's Committee/Nixon fight was that the Committees
was not a few minute affair. It went on daily for weeks on end; with
the public's engaged interest in the affair not ebbing at all---quite
the contrary---even after the very opening of the hearings was like a
cannon shot.
I pity those who refuse to learn from their elders.
Well you're the perfect example of someone remaining steadfastly ignorant.
If you had read the Washington Post article I cited, you would have seen
that the hearings opened with a thud, and it was some time before the public
became interested.
|
No. You didn't see the hearings. If you had you would have known it
certainly did not start out with a "thud."
| Quote: |
Beyond that, it's a different television world. In 1973 -- I know, long
before you were born -- there were only three TV networks and they all
pre-empted their daytime programming to cover the hearings.
|
As I recall the hearings were shifted to evenings for the working
public not to miss it television-wise, though everywhere I worked
everyone was listening, just like the Lewis/Schmelling fight, on the
radio.
| Quote: |
As a result,
people watched because there was nothing else on.
|
If only one television station carried it, that television station
would have been getting 80% of the viewers.
The networks knew it, thus ALL carried the hearings.
Moreover, everyone was following the legal battles leading up to it.
Thousands were in the streets demanding an end to the War in Vietnam
and Nixon's resignation.
The break-in was the means to that end also!
| Quote: |
Now it would be relegated to CSPAN or, at best, cable news channels and,
like Bush's war, would be largely ignored.
|
If so, only by the millions of illegal and even legal so-called
immigrants who quite frankly do not give a shit about the U.S.. There
here to take, that's all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Don Gabacho
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 4:43 am Post subject: Re: bush,jr down 2 more points in another poll! |
|
|
On Jun 2, 4:52 pm, "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Don Gabacho" <jpast...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
news:1180793398.993845.322240@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Dan Kimmel wrote:
"Don Gabacho" <jpast...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
news:1180730678.352531.286670@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
P.S. When the day came for the summation, so to speak, of Erwin's
Committee and, one after the other, the committee's members were to
make their case for, or not, there being grounds for impeachment, even
then, no one knew how it would go.
It did appear that the very conservative Talmadge and Guerny would
side with Nixon's stooge, Baker, while Inouye, Montoya, and Erwin
would not.
The difference, it was thought, lied with the maverick Republican
Weiker.
That evening the cases made by Inouye, Montoya, Erwin and even
Talmadge and Guerny and especially Weiker to millions of viewers, were
their and my proudest for being an American days in our lives.
You don't even know who was on the committee. ERVIN. GURNEY. WEICKER.
Are
you dyslexic or simply a bad speller?
Nothing has come even close since.
And you are going to tell me and all those millions, it never
happened!!!
Good-bye Kimmel, America needs some serious looking after right now.
Here's what actually set off the call for impeachment. I remember it
well.
Your "buy a term paper" website may have overlooked it:
You pathetic ignoramus. I am telling you what I WITNESSED and not what
I read from any of your sources for "term papers."
You dolt. YOU were the one who posted links to term paper sites.
|
"Term paper sites"? In your experience not mine---"dolt". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Don Gabacho
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 5:10 am Post subject: Re: bush,jr down 2 more points in another poll! |
|
|
On Jun 2, 4:54 pm, "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Don Gabacho" <jpast...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
news:1180794654.896251.180180@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 2, 4:44 am, "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote:
"Don Gabacho" <jpast...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
I was a college student at the time and I watched the hearings.
And, having watched those hearings, the committee, as you have
repeatedly stated were "not investigating for grounds for
impeachment."
And in their summaries, the final statements of each committee member,
making impeachment imperative (as they did) or not (as they did not),
never, as you have repeatedly stated, happened.
And that vote by the Senate's Committee Members, as you have stated
over and over again, could not have happened because the Senate as a
whole could not Constitutionally vote.
You were as "blind," "deaf" and "dumb" then as even now.
You can believe whatever you want in your fantasy world.
|
Like there was never a holocast? A wild west?
| Quote: |
Out here in the
real world it was the House Judiciary Comittee, not Senator ERVIN'S select
Senate committee, that considered and voted on impeachment.
The Senate's role impeachment is spelled out in the Constitution. It's
something Senator ERVIN was very familiar with, and a document that I know
as well. You, obviously, don't have a clue.
|
No one is denying that---or ever did or even now:
"When the day came for the summation, so to speak, of Erwin's
Committee and, one after the other, the committee's members were to
make their case for, or not, there being GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT, even
then, no one knew how it would go.
It did appear that the very conservative Talmadge and Guerny would
side with Nixon's stooge, Baker, while Inouye, Montoya, and Erwin
would not.
The difference, it was thought, lied with the maverick Republican
Weiker.
That evening the cases made by Inouye, Montoya, Erwin and even
Talmadge and Guerny and especially Weiker to millions of viewers, were
their and my proudest for being an American days in our lives.
Nothing has come even close since.
And you are going to tell me and all those millions, it never
happened!!!
Good-bye Kimmel, America needs some serious looking after right now." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
1307 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
