Is Obama already planning his re-election ?

[EagleSmack]

Joe... when you retain the house...you have won. Folks like you are the only ones who attempt to claim the oppositions disaster in a failed attempt at retaking the house.

What is the goal here? To win Congress for your party.

1998 Democrats failed.


But hey... hold on to the Glorious Victory of 1998 bro!

 

[EagleSmack]

Really... that is funny because Nixon wasn't IMPEACHED!

Sure he wasn’t. I don’t know how old you are EagleSmack, but I was in USA when the impeachment proceedings were under way.

Nixon was not impeached because he resigned, he saw the writing on the wall. When it was revealed that there were tapes of the White House conversation and that Nixon was implicated, the floor fell from under Nixon. Many Republicans were ready to vote for impeachment.

When asked how long it will take to vote for impeachment, one Republican House member, Anderson remarked ‘why would we need more than a day?’

Nixon was looking at certain impeachment in House and a certain conviction in the senate. If he had been removed, he would lose his presidential pension and all the other privileges associated with the job. So he took the only way out and resigned.

That indeed was the perfect example of how to do the impeachment. Democrats controlled both Senate and House, but they brought Republicans along all the way. They consulted Republicans, they kept them in the loop. Then when republicans became aware to the wrong doings by Nixon himself, the bottom fell out and Nixon had to resign.

Close but no cigar.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Joe... when you retain the house...you have won. Folks like you are the only ones who attempt to claim the oppositions disaster in a failed attempt at retaking the house.

What is the goal here? To win Congress for your party.

1998 Democrats failed.


But hey... hold on to the Glorious Victory of 1998 bro!

That is only your opinion, EagleSmack, I don’t know of anybody who agrees with you. As I said, show me even one web reference to support what you are saying. You cannot. Nobody except you says that Republicans had a great 1998 election, the overwhelming consensus is that they had a disastrous 1998 elections, and Gingrich had to resign as a result (as the web pages I have given say).

When you hold an opinion with which nobody agrees, you are a genius, a crank, an eccentric or a certifiable lunatic. You decide which of these you are (and which of these I think you are).

 

[lone wolf]

When are you going to show web references for anything you say? Having you tell an American how their system works is a lot like marching into a foreign country and telling them how things should work there.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Close but no cigar.

Not close, EagleSmack, but accurate in every aspect. If you think I am wrong in any aspect, give me a web reference. Again, you cannot.


You have this rather strange habit of trying to present your personal opinion as the absolute Gospel truth, without giving any evidence in support of what you are saying. Well, i don't take unsupported word of anybody, not even you.



If you think I am wrong, give me a web page and I will look at it. But your unsupported personal opinion means nothing.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

When are you going to show web references for anything you say? Having you tell an American how their system works is a lot like marching into a foreign country and telling them how things should work there.

Sorry, LoneWolf, but here I am right and EaglSmack is wrong. As to web references, I have given plenty of web references for what I am saying (that 1998 was a disastrous election for Republicans), while EagelSmack hasn’t provided any for his contention that it was a great election for the Republicans. He hasn’t because he cannot, one doesn’t exist.

In case you missed the references I have given, refer to post # 26. They support what I said in every aspect. Unless, of course you choose to believe EagleSmack’s unsupported word for it, that is your right, of course.

Just because he lives in USA and I live in Canada does not make him right. There is plenty of ignorance among Americans, even regarding to what happens in USA. EagleSmack is a prime example of that. He claims that 1998 election was a great victory for Republicans, but he cannot produce even one reference to it, because there isn’t any. That is his Republican, partisan bias talking.

On the other hand, I have provided two references in support of what I am saying. You could easily find a dozen more, just Google for ‘1998 election’.

 

[lone wolf]

You simply MUST be Brit....

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You simply MUST be Brit....

Well, you wanted references, I gave you them. Did you check them out? Or was your question purely for the sake of arguing?

 

[lone wolf]

An editorial?.... How on earth can you consider an editorial as fact? Why not look up some laws or statistical data?

 

[EagleSmack]

Not close, EagleSmack, but accurate in every aspect. If you think I am wrong in any aspect, give me a web reference. Again, you cannot.


You have this rather strange habit of trying to present your personal opinion as the absolute Gospel truth, without giving any evidence in support of what you are saying. Well, i don't take unsupported word of anybody, not even you.

Are you kidding? Are you actually accusing others of doing this? Please.

Nixon was not impeached. Therefore close but no cigar.

You also fail to mention in your rants that AFTER 1998 the GOP picked up 3 seats in one Congressional election and 8 in another. I guess those were Democrat DISASTERS.

If you think I am wrong, give me a web page and I will look at it. But your unsupported personal opinion means nothing.

Go check out Wiki and they have the results of these ASTOUNDING, EARTH SHATTERING, WORLD SHAKING DEMOCRAT DISASTERS just like you proclaim happened in 1998 to the GOP.

If you don't win the House... you lose... no matter how you twist it.

 

[EagleSmack]

Sorry, LoneWolf, but here I am right and EaglSmack is wrong. As to web references, I have given plenty of web references for what I am saying (that 1998 was a disastrous election for Republicans), while EagelSmack hasn’t provided any for his contention that it was a great election for the Republicans. He hasn’t because he cannot, one doesn’t exist.

This is how thick headed you are. I never proclaimed 1998 as a GREAT ELECTION for the GOP. I merely said they won and retained the house and did so until 2006.

You inyour desparation to appear as if you know more than everyone have failed repeatedly. They lost a few seats and they lost a couple more the next election. But the two elections after that the Democrats lost an even greater number.

How were they not disasters for the Dems?

he lives in USA and I live in Canada does not make him right. There is plenty of ignorance among Americans, even regarding to what happens in USA. EagleSmack is a prime example of that. He claims that 1998 election was a great victory for Republicans, but he cannot produce even one reference to it, because there isn’t any. That is his Republican, partisan bias talking.

Where?

On the other hand, I have provided two references in support of what I am saying. You could easily find a dozen more, just Google for ‘1998 election’.

There are always two sides and the other side tends to spin just as you are doing. As well as putting words in my mouth.

Look... if you cannot defend yourself properly... walk away. But making false claims of me saying it was a great victory and saying I am a Republican after I have repeatedly said I was not a GOP member or that I claim that 1998 was a Great Victory just shows that you really know little of what you speak and have to revert to these sophmoric tactics.

 

[EagleSmack]

It was about sex and nothing else.

FAILED just to drive the point home. It was about lying to Congress

In 1973 plenty of Republicans joined the Democrats, because that indeed was about breaking the law (I was living in USA at that time and watched the impeachment proceedings on TV).

Again... joined?

There was no impeachment... badabing?

It was purely about sex.

Your obsessive and the liberal opinion... albeit it was false if you read the charges.

Hence... you are indeed wrong on all accounts.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Obamas' visiting..............

President Obama Makes First Overseas Trip - washingtonpost.com

 

[JLM]

Now, now boys, just be nice, this is a venue for opinions and even if the guys "opinion" is wrong he still has the right to say it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

An editorial?.... How on earth can you consider an editorial as fact? Why not look up some laws or statistical data?

There are plenty of facts in the reference I gave, Lone Wolf. E.g. it said Republicans lost 4 seats in the House election (where normally they would expect to gain 25 to 30 in the second midterm). It also says that it was the worst second midterm result of the out of power party in 64 years. These are called statistics, numbers.

As I said, if you want to believe EagelSmaack’s unsupported word, that is your business. But don’t make absurd claims, such as there is no statistical data. There is statistical data in the reference I have given, and conclusions based upon statistical data.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Nixon was not impeached. Therefore close but no cigar.

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.

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.

You also fail to mention in your rants that AFTER 1998 the GOP picked up 3 seats in one Congressional election and 8 in another. I guess those were Democrat DISASTERS.

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.

This is how thick headed you are. I never proclaimed 1998 as a GREAT ELECTION for the GOP. I merely said they won and retained the house and did so until 2006.

You claimed that Republicans won the House, and said 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). 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.

There are always two sides and the other side tends to spin just as you are doing. As well as putting words in my mouth.

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.

But making false claims of me saying it was a great victory and saying I am a Republican after I have repeatedly said I was not a GOP member or that I claim that 1998 was a Great Victory just shows that you really know little of what you speak

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.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

FAILED just to drive the point home. It was about lying to Congress

That is your opinion, people didn’t’ agree with that. That is why Republicans got such a drubbing in 1998 elections.

Again... joined?

There was no impeachment... badabing?

There was no impeachment because several Republicans JOINED Democrats and were going to vote to impeach (in the House) and convict (in the Senate), That is why Nixon resigned.

Your obsessive and the liberal opinion... albeit it was false if you read the charges.

Sure they are going to put up some trumped up charges, they are not going to say it was about sex. But people knew what it was about. That is why even many Republicans did not vote with their party, there was a general disgust with Republican behavior.

As I said, TEN Republican Senators voted for Clinton in the Senate, voted against their party. Main reason was that the impeachment was mostly about sex (no matter what the charges said).

Go check out Wiki and they have the results of these ASTOUNDING, EARTH SHATTERING, WORLD SHAKING DEMOCRAT DISASTERS just like you proclaim happened in 1998 to the GOP.

Sure they did. Let me again quote from Wikipedia.

Shortly after the 1998 elections, where Republicans lost 5 seats in the House, Gingrich announced his resignation from his House seat and as Speaker. – Wikipedia. It continues,

During this period, Gingrich focused on the perjury charges against Clinton as a unifying campaign theme in national Republican advertising. While Republicans believed this theme would ensure gains in the 1998 midterm elections, they instead lost five seats in the House — the worst performance in 64 years for a party that didn't hold the presidency.

Anyway, I have said my piece. I said right at the beginning that I cannot hope to convince a staunch, loyal Republican like you that 1998 election was a disaster for Republicans. But I think I have provided enough evidence to support my point. Believe it or not as you will.

 

[lone wolf]

There are plenty of facts in the reference I gave, Lone Wolf. E.g. it said Republicans lost 4 seats in the House election (where normally they would expect to gain 25 to 30 in the second midterm). It also says that it was the worst second midterm result of the out of power party in 64 years. These are called statistics, numbers.

As I said, if you want to believe EagelSmaack’s unsupported word, that is your business. But don’t make absurd claims, such as there is no statistical data. There is statistical data in the reference I have given, and conclusions based upon statistical data.

I consider it safer to accept the word of the man who lives in the system than the editorials of a know it all who doesn't....

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I consider it safer to accept the word of the man who lives in the system than the editorials of a know it all who doesn't....

Suit yourself, Lone Wolf, it is a free country. But then don't ask me for any references or anything like that in the future, I will know where you are coming from.

 

[lone wolf]

Suit yourself, Lone Wolf, it is a free country. But then don't ask me for any references or anything like that in the future, I will know where you are coming from.

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".