Is Obama already planning his re-election ?

[SirJosephPorter]

Waaah!

When you learn the difference between an editorial (one man's opinion) and facts (laws, witness statements, hard evidence) please feel free to share. Until that moment, you can do no better than anyone else with an opinion. Unless you happen to be a credited expert in the field in which you profess knowledge, please don't get the idea that your opinions are of greater worth than anyone elses. That is what earns you the label of "blowhard".

Name calling, now why doesn’t’ that surprise me? Does that mean that you want to join Cannuck in becoming a member of my fan club?

But you surprise me, Cannuck was a lot more innovative, with plenty of ‘f’ words. Surely you know some ‘f’ words, don’t’ you?

 

[lone wolf]

Name calling, now why doesn’t’ that surprise me? Does that mean that you want to join Cannuck in becoming a member of my fan club?

But you surprise me, Cannuck was a lot more innovative, with plenty of ‘f’ words. Surely you know some ‘f’ words, don’t’ you?

Blowhard is a term you have heard before, I take it. For your reference, and in context, it was an observation ... but it doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't recognize the difference.

Now.... If I just up and called you "azzhole", that would be namecalling. Do try to educate yourself, mmmmkay?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Blowhard is a term you have heard before, I take it. For your reference, and in context, it was an observation ... but it doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't recognize the difference.

Now.... If I just up and called you "azzhole", that would be namecalling. Do try to educate yourself, mmmmkay?

Any other term would be naming calling? Tell me some ‘f’ words that would be considered name calling. Then I can really make you a member of my fan club.

 

[L Gilbert]

You Obama, you. How is that for name-calling?

(lol Remember the thread topic?)

 

[lone wolf]

Any other term would be naming calling? Tell me some ‘f’ words that would be considered name calling. Then I can really make you a member of my fan club.

Fan club? How DO you squeeze that head through a doorway?

...and you're not the sort with whom I'd care to talk dirty anyway....

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You Obama, you. How is that for name-calling?

(lol Remember the thread topic?)

Sorry, Gilbert. You are right, of course. But I just can’t stand potty mouths, people who spout filth.

Anyway, I am done with Lone Wolf, I won’t be responding to him again. As far as I am concerned, he is a member of my fan club, along with Cannuck.

 

[lone wolf]

Enjoy the delusion, SJP.

I got junkmail on FB today saying Obama is my fourth cousin once removed. Once what is removed?

 

[L Gilbert]

I never could figure that one out, Cousin lol Removed from the family?

 

[gopher]

''He lied to Congress and therefore he was impeached. Fact. Liberals did a great job spinning it into an impeachment about sex which was an act of desparation. ''


Bush and Colin Powell lied before Congress by asserting that certain satellite photos were ''proof'' of WMD in Iraq. But experts immediately pointed out that the photos were fabrications. Thus, Bush lied before Congress under oath.

The difference being that libs are too cowardly to apply the same standards to Republicans that the GOP does to Dems.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The difference being that libs are too cowardly to apply the same standards to Republicans that the GOP does to Dems.

You may be right, gopher. However, I don’t think Bush impeachment was worth it, Democrats would have paid too high a price for the attempt.

First, the attempt would not have been successful. Democrats had the slimmest of majorities in the senate (51 to 49), and 67 votes just were not there. Second, they saw the terrible mistake Republicans made in going after Clinton. While Republicans tried to throw Clinton out for sexual peccadilloes, Democrats would have gone after Bush for much greater crime (leading the country into a war on false premises, which resulted in the death of several thousand Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis).

Also, I think chances war very high that if Democrats had tried to impeach Bush, his popularity would have gone up. That is what happened to Clinton. When Americans saw that Republicans were trying to remove Clinton for political advantage, that they were abusing impeachment process, Clinton’s popularity started to rise. By the end of impeachment process, his popularity was in high 60s and stayed there. Same thing might have happened to Bush.

In fact, if they had tried to impeach Bush, I seriously doubt that they would have achieved the spectacular victory that they did in 2008. Just as Republicans had a terrible, disastrous election in 1998 (they lost seats instead of making substantial gains), Democrats would have had the same in 2008.

Obama may still have been elected, I don’t know. But they probably would have lost the Senate and perhaps House as well. It is quite possible that Obama would have faced a Republican Senate and/or House.

So whatever Bush’s crimes, Democrats were wise not to go after Bush. Impeachment is the nuclear option, and should not be used for trivial reasons (as Republicans did in 1998 or to try to gain political advantage (as they tried in 1998.

And suppose by some miracle they had managed to impeach, convict Bush and get him out of the White House. What then? Darth Vader himself would have been the President. He would have been much worse than Bush, he was the chief architect of the Iraq war.

 

[pgs]

Your fan club must be getting pretty big.
Soon you may find yourself with no one to talk to.
lol

 

[EagleSmack]

He was not impeached because he resigned. He resigned because he was about to be impeached. You seem unaware of the history of your own country. He resigned because he was sure of being impeached in the House and being convicted in the senate.

As stated earlier. Close but no cigar.

While he had some hopes that he would escape conviction in the senate, he hung on. But when it looked like he was going down in the senate, he resigned. It may benefit you to read the history of your own country, rather than make partisan political points here, with no evidence to support what you are saying.

The one who should be reading a book is you and you are just as partisan as any birkenstock wearing US Liberal.

What has that got to do with anything? We are only discussing 1998 election here, not any other election. Now that you have lost the argument for 1998, you are moving on to the other elections.

It is just to prove that your argument is moot and folly. The elections of 1998 were and are a mere footnote when compared to 1994 and 2006. Those were Democrat and GOP disasters respectively. 1998 was a simple loss of seats while retaining the majority in Congress.

You claimed that Republicans won the House, and said it was NOT a disaster.

It is not a claim... it is fact. They actually already owned the house prior to that and it was not a disaster.

When you claim that Republicans won, you are implying that they had a great election (after all, what is greater than winning? That is what you are implying).

No. YOU are implying I said that it was a great victory to bolster your own argument. You cannot convince anyone with your own rantings so you twist mine.

When asked to provide any reference which says that it was not a disaster, that it was a great victory, you cannot provide any reference to support your assertion.

Why should I run a Fool's Errand for you? I never said it was a great victory. I am sure the GOP would have liked to pick up a few seats but they didn't. The elections of 1998 pale in comparison to 2006 which WAS a disaster. Again, for the hundreth time... the GOP maintained the majority and therefore it was no disaster.

Really? Where your side then, only one side is is being presented her, my side. We still are waiting to see any references for your contention that 1998 was NOT a disaster for Republicans.

You want it to be a disaster as you do not like the GOP. It is a typical liberal tactic to make something of nothing while avoiding facts and primarily common sense.

You claim you do not belong to GOP, but actions speak louder than words. From what you write, you come across as a staunch, most partisan GOP. As I said, even many of the staunch GOP supporters concede that 1998 was a disaster for Republicans.

But yet I said I hope Obama's succeeds for all of our sake's. Hardly partisan thing to say wouldn't you think?

Failed again Joe!

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Your fan club must be getting pretty big.
Soon you may find yourself with no one to talk to.
lol

Pgs, if I find no one to talk to, I am out of here. I existed quite happily before the forum, I will do it again. I can exist very well without the forum.

But as I said before, I have better things to do than to waste my time trading insults with anonymous bloggers.

And there are only three in my fan club at present, let us see how big it grows.

 

[lone wolf]

And there are only three in my fan club at present, let us see how big it grows.

Ahhh ... so you admit it.... You ARE trolling... :lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I am sure the GOP would have liked to pick up a few seats but they didn't. The elections of 1998 pale in comparison to 2006 which WAS a disaster. Again, for the hundreth time... the GOP maintained the majority and therefore it was no disaster.

EagleSmack, I think we have talked the topic to death. As I said before, didn’t expect to convince a staunch Republican like you (and in spite of your protestation, that is how you come across to me) anyway. But I think I have given enough evidence to my satisfaction, that 1998 indeed was a disaster for Republicans.

Also, I don’t agree that 2006 was a disaster for Republicans. Democratic gains were not out of ordinary for second midterm. The only surprise was that Democrats gained control of the Senate. It was expected that they will pick up 5 seats, they picked up 6.

But if you look at it historically, that is the kind of gains out of power party makes in second midterm, and that is the kind of gains Republicans should have made in 1998 (but didn’t, largely because of their idiotic impeachment efforts, it really was a referendum on impeachment). So 2006 election was nothing out of ordinary. Again, refer to the Wikipedia reference I gave and see what they say.

Indeed, Anne Coulter made this very same point just before the election. She predicted that Democrats will gain control of the Hose and perhaps the senate. She also went on to say that that would be normal result, in line with other second mid term results.

Anne coulter belongs to far right and I rarely agree with her about anything. But in this case, she was right. 2006 results were not out of ordinary, they represent the norm (Republican results in 1998 don’t).

Now, 2008 election was a totally different thing, that really was a disaster for Republicans. President may not necessarily have coattails to help the Senate and House candidates. Indeed, there have been many elections where one party won the presidency, but the other party retained or gained control of the Senate or the House.

Year when there is presidential election does not necessarily favor one party or the other (as the second midterm election favors the party out of power). But Republicans got trounced in 2008. That was the disaster, not the 2006 election.

 

[EagleSmack]

.

EagleSmack, I think we have talked the topic to death. As I said before, didn’t expect to convince a staunch Republican like you (and in spite of your protestation, that is how you come across to me) anyway. But I think I have given enough evidence to my satisfaction, that 1998 indeed was a disaster for Republicans.

Failed again.

Also, I don’t agree that 2006 was a disaster for Republicans.

Now you are clearly off your rocker.

You are claiming that in 1998 that a mere 5 loss seat while retaining the house in 1998 was a disaster but in 2006 the GOP lost a whooping 30 seats and lost the house was not?

Lets sumise this...

1998. -5 seats. GOP retains House = Disaster

2006. -30 seats. GOP loses house= Not a disaster

Oh boy. Wow. Dellusional for sure.

Democratic gains were not out of ordinary for second midterm. The only surprise was that Democrats gained control of the Senate. It was expected that they will pick up 5 seats, they picked up 6.

It was WAY out of the ordinary. The GOP was swept from the House.

233- Democrat seats
202- GOP seats

As pointed out much earlier your claim to the "ordinary" and "historically" falls flat as the Democrat Party owned the house from 1954 to 1994.

But if you look at it historically, that is the kind of gains out of power party makes in second midterm, and that is the kind of gains Republicans should have made in 1998

Again... there is no pattern. Should have means nothing and is not a smart way to prove a point.

(but didn’t, largely because of their idiotic impeachment efforts, it really was a referendum on impeachment).

Do you see how off you are. It WAS a REAL Impeachment. He was indeed impeached. That is fact.

So 2006 election was nothing out of ordinary. Again, refer to the Wikipedia reference I gave and see what they say.

It was out of the ordinary. They got their teeth kicked in.

Indeed, Anne Coulter made this very same point just before the election. She predicted that Democrats will gain control of the Hose and perhaps the senate. She also went on to say that that would be normal result, in line with other second mid term results.

Oh so you are a Coulter fan and everything she says you believe? Or is it that what she said you agree with this time. She was acting just like you are saying a royal butt kicking was no big deal. Almost as silly as claiming 1998 was a disaster.

Anne coulter belongs to far right and I rarely agree with her about anything. But in this case, she was right. 2006 results were not out of ordinary, they represent the norm (Republican results in 1998 don’t).

Of course...

Your pattern is that whenever someone agrees with you that is fact and correct. Just like you stating that liberal sources of news are reputable and conservative soures are irreputable. You are biased... clearly biased and partisan.

Now, 2008 election was a totally different thing, that really was a disaster for Republicans. President may not necessarily have coattails to help the Senate and House candidates. Indeed, there have been many elections where one party won the presidency, but the other party retained or gained control of the Senate or the House.

The Democrats already held the Senate in 2006. You're falling flat again. Whenever you lose the executive office it is a loss as well.

Year when there is presidential election does not necessarily favor one party or the other (as the second midterm election favors the party out of power). But Republicans got trounced in 2008. That was the disaster, not the 2006 election.

The only thing different in 2008 was that the Democrats controlled the Executive office as well as Congress. In 2006 GW basically became a lame duck president.

 

[EagleSmack]

 

[JLM]

I am sure the GOP would have liked to pick up a few seats but they didn't. The elections of 1998 pale in comparison to 2006 which WAS a disaster. Again, for the hundreth time... the GOP maintained the majority and therefore it was no disaster.

EagleSmack, I think we have talked the topic to death. As I said before, didn’t expect to convince a staunch Republican like you (and in spite of your protestation, that is how you come across to me) anyway. But I think I have given enough evidence to my satisfaction, that 1998 indeed was a disaster for Republicans.

Also, I don’t agree that 2006 was a disaster for Republicans. Democratic gains were not out of ordinary for second midterm. The only surprise was that Democrats gained control of the Senate. It was expected that they will pick up 5 seats, they picked up 6.

But if you look at it historically, that is the kind of gains out of power party makes in second midterm, and that is the kind of gains Republicans should have made in 1998 (but didn’t, largely because of their idiotic impeachment efforts, it really was a referendum on impeachment). So 2006 election was nothing out of ordinary. Again, refer to the Wikipedia reference I gave and see what they say.

Indeed, Anne Coulter made this very same point just before the election. She predicted that Democrats will gain control of the Hose and perhaps the senate. She also went on to say that that would be normal result, in line with other second mid term results.

Anne coulter belongs to far right and I rarely agree with her about anything. But in this case, she was right. 2006 results were not out of ordinary, they represent the norm (Republican results in 1998 don’t).

Now, 2008 election was a totally different thing, that really was a disaster for Republicans. President may not necessarily have coattails to help the Senate and House candidates. Indeed, there have been many elections where one party won the presidency, but the other party retained or gained control of the Senate or the House.

Year when there is presidential election does not necessarily favor one party or the other (as the second midterm election favors the party out of power). But Republicans got trounced in 2008. That was the disaster, not the 2006 election.

:lol::lol::lol::lol: IT's 2009 boys, why would ANYONE argue about banal trivia that happened in the last millenium - it wasn't even a major election year, no one was running for president (albeit Clinton was probably desperately trying to remain one) not to mention lengthening Monica's leash a lot. Monica was probably the most important thing "that happened" in 1998:lol::lol::lol:

 

[L Gilbert]

Yawns. Thought this thread was about the Big O?

 

[JLM]

Yawns. Thought this thread was about the Big O?

Nope- seems 1998 is more important.....:lol::lol::lol::lol: