Petition to impeach Obama, if he wins the election

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Petition to impeach Obama, if he wins the election 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Petition to impeach Obama, if he wins the election 

"AllYou!" <idaman.TakeThisOut@conversent.net> wrote in
news:E7edna9S9smsKSjVnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@posted.choiceonecommunications:

> In news:Xns9B07A111B639dewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@130.133.1.4,
> theBZA <dewey3kNOSPAM.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> mused:
>> "AllYou!" <idaman.TakeThisOut@conversent.net> wrote in
>> news:E6Odneg2WJjcMyjVnZ2dnUVZ_qvinZ2d@posted.choiceonecommunications:
>>
>>> In news:Xns9B079F0EBFB79dewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@130.133.1.4,
>>> theBZA <dewey3kNOSPAM.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> mused:
>>>> That80sGuy <clark.TakeThisOut@griswold.com> wrote in
>>>> news:Xns9B078A33398A3That80sGuy@198.186.190.61:
>>>>
>>>>> In message
>>>>> news:Xns9B07879F45F55dewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@130.133.1.4, theBZA
>>>>> <dewey3kNOSPAM.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> done wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> McCain hasn't even bothered to show
>>>>>> up for work for almost 5 full months now.
>>>>>
>>>>> If only the other 99 Senators would take his lead the country
>>>>> would be far better off.
>>>>>
>>>> No doubt. Then we could be just like Zimbabwe.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> "I spent 5 1/2 years in a prison cell ... not
>>>> because I wanted to get a house when I got out."
>>>>
>>>> - John McCain, explaining why he cannot keep track
>>>> of how many houses he owns. Makes you wonder
>>>> what else he cannot keep track of.
>>>
>>> He did say that as an attempt to explain why he can't keep
>>> track of his houses. He said it as an explanation for why it's
>>> not anything all that important to him. Makes you wonder what
>>> other nonsense his oppoenents will woder about.
>>>
>> Well, for one, I wonder why he lambasted Obama for making a
>> speech in German when he himself had just made major speeches in
>> Columbia and Mexico a couple of weeks earlier. That seems just a
>> tad hypocritical although I'm sure you don't think so.
>
> Why would you be sure of that? You can't possibly know me well
> enough to know that about me. I'll make a deal with you..... let's
> each of us accept what the other is saying at face value, and let
> the merits of what we say stand on its own merits, regardless of
> what we believe that other's motives to be, OK?
>
> Now, whereas I think that you ascribed the wrong motives to what
> McCain said on Leno, I'm not so sure that you've got it right about
> what McCain was complaining about with Obama. Was he complaining
> that Obama should not have made any speech overseas, or was he
> complaining about something specific that Obama said overseas? Do
> you have a link to what he complained about so that I can see the
> context in which it was said?
>
When asked about Obama's speech in Berlin, McCain replied, ""I would
much prefer to do that as president of the United States rather than as
a candidate for the office of the presidency."

I notice you failed to label the comment as hypocritical even after
decrying my assumption about you. Let me take another stab in the dark,
you will continue to make excuses about why McCain's comments were
somehow not hypocritical because there was something incredibly specific
about making a speech in Berlin or Germany *specifically* that makes it
OK to make speeches in Colombia and Mexico. Except of course if Obama
went to Mexico and made a speech, there would, no doubt, be some very
specific reason why that was a problem for him, but not for Johnny Mac.

>> I also wonder why he thinks Obama saying the Cold War ended
>> "when major nations stood together" is a sign of naivete about
>> world events but when he says the Cold War ended because "the
>> great democracies stood together" it makes him qualified to lead
>> the country. No doubt you can explain in exquisite detail the
>> major differences between "major nations" and "great
>> democracies" always taking into account that many of our allies
>> in the Cold War were *NOT* democracies.
>
> I have no idea why you'd resort to sarcasm and animosity so quickly.
> Do you always do that when you have a difference of opinion with
> someone? As to your comments, again, I'd have to see the context in
> which those comments were made in order to respond intelligently.
>
You played the sarcasm card first so this is yet another hypocrisy
exposed. You are rapidly becoming a usenet stereotype. As for the
"animosity" comment, well, it did take you to the second paragraph to
throw out an ad hominem so I guess that's better than kicking off with
one. Can't wait for paragraph three and the inevitable name calling.

>> I also wonder why he voted against his own immigration bill. I
>> suppose he was for amnesty before he was against it.
>
> I'm not sure that he did, but if he did, it could be because by the
> time it came to a vote, it had been radically changed by the
> Congressional process to the point where it was inconsistent with
> his values.
>
You mean like when the Iraq funding bill had an amendment stripped that
would have required dollar-accounting of the money spent and that this
change was why John Kerry changed his vote on the bill? I wonder if you
were supportive of Kerry on that change.

>
>> I also wonder why he voted against his own anti-torture bill. I
>> suppose he was humane treatment of prisoners before he was
>> against it.
>>
>> In fact, I wonder how it is possible that a great maverick like
>> McCain can be the only Senator in history to vote against a bill
>> he himself sponsored and to have done not just once, but twice
>> since he wrapped the nomination.
>>
>> I also wonder how a man who is currently on a five month *PAID*
>> vacation while interviewing for a new job can relate to regular
>> Americans who are worried about how they will afford to heat
>> their homes this winter. And I mean people with only one home,
>> not 8 or 9.
>>
>> Finally, I wonder if you will be able to respond to these points
>> without resorting to ad hominems and name-calling.
>
> It seems like you've already done much of that. Calm down a little,
> and maybe we can have a civilized debate, OK?
>
Well, not explicit name calling, but the implications are there. In my
nearly 20 years on usenet, I have found that a general rule of thumb is
that people who tell you to "calm down" are usually not really
interested in "civilized debate." To wit: you failed to actually address
any of my points and instead played the "I don't know if he really said
that/did that" card. This suggests that you are either woefully
uninformed on current events (I grant the mainstream media is sorely
lacking in coverage of McCain's gaffes but it's hard to believe anyone
hasn't even heard of these comments/votes he's made) or you are simply
dodging them by pretending you need more information. INstead of
replying from ignorance, you could have google some of those quotes
yourself and easily found the links yourself. But since that would
appear to be beyond you:

"Great democracies" vs. "major nations":
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/26/politics/animal/main4385488.sh
tml

"Now I missed a few years of the Cold War, as the guest of one of our
adversaries, but as I recall the world was deeply divided during the
Cold War -- between the side of freedom and the side of tyranny. The
Cold War ended not because the world stood "as one," [note that Obama
did not say "the world stood as one" but rather that "the major nations
came together"] but because the great democracies came together, bound
together by sustained and decisive American leadership."

Immigration flip-flop:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11240.html

McCain, the Arizona senator, dismayed Latinos last year when he stepped
back from his immigration bill that would have tightened the borders and
legalized undocumented immigrants. As boos and hisses from angry
Republican conservatives grew louder at campaign events, he switched
course and vowed to “first” secure the borders. Were his failed bill to
come up again, he would not vote for it, he said.

and in his own words here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtHOkSWCr6Q

And I would appreciate and be pleasantly surprised if you would address
the fact that McCain has not even bothered to appear in the Senate since
early April, taking a 5 month (and counting) paid vacation, on the tax-
payer dime, in order to audition for a new job. At least Obama has
managed to vote on a handful of bills while out campaigning, including
the Medicare bill that even TEd Kennedy, leaving his sick bed during
chemotherapy treatments, manageed to vote on. The Senate voted 69-30 on
that bill and that adds up to 99 votes. Guess who missed the vote?



--
"I spent 5 1/2 years in a prison cell ... not
because I wanted to get a house when I got out."

- John McCain, playing the POW card yet again in order to
explain why he cannot keep track
of how many houses he owns. Makes you wonder
what else he cannot keep track of.
 >> Stay informed about: Petition to impeach Obama, if he wins the election 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Petition to impeach Obama, if he wins the election 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Petition to impeach Obama, if he wins the election 

In news:Xns9B07AAC9D8724dewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@130.133.1.4,
theBZA <dewey3kNOSPAM DeleteThis @gmail.com> mused:
> "AllYou!" <idaman DeleteThis @conversent.net> wrote in
> news:E7edna9S9smsKSjVnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@posted.choiceonecommunications:
>
>> In news:Xns9B07A111B639dewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@130.133.1.4,
>> theBZA <dewey3kNOSPAM DeleteThis @gmail.com> mused:
>>> "AllYou!" <idaman DeleteThis @conversent.net> wrote in
>>> news:E6Odneg2WJjcMyjVnZ2dnUVZ_qvinZ2d@posted.choiceonecommunications:
>>>
>>>> In news:Xns9B079F0EBFB79dewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@130.133.1.4,
>>>> theBZA <dewey3kNOSPAM DeleteThis @gmail.com> mused:
>>>>> That80sGuy <clark DeleteThis @griswold.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:Xns9B078A33398A3That80sGuy@198.186.190.61:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message
>>>>>> news:Xns9B07879F45F55dewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@130.133.1.4,
>>>>>> theBZA <dewey3kNOSPAM DeleteThis @gmail.com> done wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> McCain hasn't even bothered to show
>>>>>>> up for work for almost 5 full months now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If only the other 99 Senators would take his lead the
>>>>>> country would be far better off.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No doubt. Then we could be just like Zimbabwe.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> "I spent 5 1/2 years in a prison cell ... not
>>>>> because I wanted to get a house when I got out."
>>>>>
>>>>> - John McCain, explaining why he cannot keep track
>>>>> of how many houses he owns. Makes you wonder
>>>>> what else he cannot keep track of.
>>>>
>>>> He did say that as an attempt to explain why he can't keep
>>>> track of his houses. He said it as an explanation for why
>>>> it's not anything all that important to him. Makes you
>>>> wonder what other nonsense his oppoenents will woder about.
>>>>
>>> Well, for one, I wonder why he lambasted Obama for making a
>>> speech in German when he himself had just made major speeches
>>> in Columbia and Mexico a couple of weeks earlier. That seems
>>> just a tad hypocritical although I'm sure you don't think so.
>>
>> Why would you be sure of that? You can't possibly know me well
>> enough to know that about me. I'll make a deal with you.....
>> let's each of us accept what the other is saying at face value,
>> and let the merits of what we say stand on its own merits,
>> regardless of what we believe that other's motives to be, OK?
>>
>> Now, whereas I think that you ascribed the wrong motives to what
>> McCain said on Leno, I'm not so sure that you've got it right
>> about what McCain was complaining about with Obama. Was he
>> complaining that Obama should not have made any speech
>> overseas, or was he complaining about something specific that
>> Obama said overseas? Do you have a link to what he complained
>> about so that I can see the context in which it was said?
>>
> When asked about Obama's speech in Berlin, McCain replied, ""I
> would much prefer to do that as president of the United States
> rather than as a candidate for the office of the presidency."
>
> I notice you failed to label the comment as hypocritical even
> after decrying my assumption about you. Let me take another stab
> in the dark, you will continue to make excuses about why
> McCain's comments were somehow not hypocritical because there
> was something incredibly specific about making a speech in
> Berlin or Germany *specifically* that makes it OK to make
> speeches in Colombia and Mexico. Except of course if Obama went
> to Mexico and made a speech, there would, no doubt, be some very
> specific reason why that was a problem for him, but not for
> Johnny Mac.

Do you always argue with yourself? You've taken your side of the
argument, but then you've gone on to take what you believe will be
my side of the argument. And, if that's not bad enough, you've then
gone on to argue that! Is that your idea of an intellectually
honest debate? do you somehow thin that if you can guess what my
response will be, that you've somehow made any kind of a point?

Anyway, your insults notwithstanding, I told you why I did respond
directly to your assertions, and that's because I have seen the
context in which those comments were made, and given your extreme
acrimony, I will not take your word for what that context was.

As to McCain's quote, you have still failed to provide the full
context of that to which McCain was referring. Do you have a link
to it, or not?


>
>>> I also wonder why he thinks Obama saying the Cold War ended
>>> "when major nations stood together" is a sign of naivete about
>>> world events but when he says the Cold War ended because "the
>>> great democracies stood together" it makes him qualified to
>>> lead the country. No doubt you can explain in exquisite detail
>>> the major differences between "major nations" and "great
>>> democracies" always taking into account that many of our allies
>>> in the Cold War were *NOT* democracies.
>>
>> I have no idea why you'd resort to sarcasm and animosity so
>> quickly. Do you always do that when you have a difference of
>> opinion with someone? As to your comments, again, I'd have to
>> see the context in which those comments were made in order to
>> respond intelligently.
>>
> You played the sarcasm card first so this is yet another
> hypocrisy exposed. You are rapidly becoming a usenet stereotype.

How was I ever sarcastic to you?

> As for the "animosity" comment, well, it did take you to the
> second paragraph to throw out an ad hominem so I guess that's
> better than kicking off with one. Can't wait for paragraph three
> and the inevitable name calling.

Do you even know what an ad hominem is? Because if you did, you
would not have used that term as you just did.


>
>>> I also wonder why he voted against his own immigration bill. I
>>> suppose he was for amnesty before he was against it.
>>
>> I'm not sure that he did, but if he did, it could be because by
>> the time it came to a vote, it had been radically changed by the
>> Congressional process to the point where it was inconsistent
>> with his values.
>>
> You mean like when the Iraq funding bill had an amendment
> stripped that would have required dollar-accounting of the money
> spent and that this change was why John Kerry changed his vote
> on the bill? I wonder if you were supportive of Kerry on that
> change.

Kerry himself said that he was before the war before he was against
it. There's not much I can add to that.


>>> I also wonder why he voted against his own anti-torture bill. I
>>> suppose he was humane treatment of prisoners before he was
>>> against it.
>>>
>>> In fact, I wonder how it is possible that a great maverick like
>>> McCain can be the only Senator in history to vote against a
>>> bill he himself sponsored and to have done not just once, but
>>> twice since he wrapped the nomination.
>>>
>>> I also wonder how a man who is currently on a five month *PAID*
>>> vacation while interviewing for a new job can relate to regular
>>> Americans who are worried about how they will afford to heat
>>> their homes this winter. And I mean people with only one home,
>>> not 8 or 9.
>>>
>>> Finally, I wonder if you will be able to respond to these
>>> points without resorting to ad hominems and name-calling.
>>
>> It seems like you've already done much of that. Calm down a
>> little, and maybe we can have a civilized debate, OK?
>>
> Well, not explicit name calling, but the implications are there.
> In my nearly 20 years on usenet, I have found that a general
> rule of thumb is that people who tell you to "calm down" are
> usually not really interested in "civilized debate." To wit: you
> failed to actually address any of my points and instead played
> the "I don't know if he really said that/did that" card.

If you think an intelligent debate can be had by simply taking your
biased word for the context in which comments were made, that you
have a very strange idea of what an intelligent debate is.


This
> suggests that you are either woefully uninformed on current
> events (I grant the mainstream media is sorely lacking in
> coverage of McCain's gaffes but it's hard to believe anyone
> hasn't even heard of these comments/votes he's made) or you are
> simply dodging them by pretending you need more information.
> INstead of replying from ignorance, you could have google some
> of those quotes yourself and easily found the links yourself.
> But since that would appear to be beyond you:
>
> "Great democracies" vs. "major nations":
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/26/politics/animal/main4385488.sh
> tml
>
> "Now I missed a few years of the Cold War, as the guest of one
> of our adversaries, but as I recall the world was deeply divided
> during the Cold War -- between the side of freedom and the side
> of tyranny. The Cold War ended not because the world stood "as
> one," [note that Obama did not say "the world stood as one" but
> rather that "the major nations came together"] but because the
> great democracies came together, bound together by sustained and
> decisive American leadership."
>
> Immigration flip-flop:
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11240.html
>
> McCain, the Arizona senator, dismayed Latinos last year when he
> stepped back from his immigration bill that would have tightened
> the borders and legalized undocumented immigrants. As boos and
> hisses from angry Republican conservatives grew louder at
> campaign events, he switched course and vowed to “first” secure
> the borders. Were his failed bill to come up again, he would not
> vote for it, he said.
>
> and in his own words here:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtHOkSWCr6Q
>
> And I would appreciate and be pleasantly surprised if you would
> address the fact that McCain has not even bothered to appear in
> the Senate since early April, taking a 5 month (and counting)
> paid vacation, on the tax- payer dime, in order to audition for
> a new job. At least Obama has managed to vote on a handful of
> bills while out campaigning, including the Medicare bill that
> even TEd Kennedy, leaving his sick bed during chemotherapy
> treatments, manageed to vote on. The Senate voted 69-30 on that
> bill and that adds up to 99 votes. Guess who missed the vote?
>
>
>
> --
> "I spent 5 1/2 years in a prison cell ... not
> because I wanted to get a house when I got out."
>
> - John McCain, playing the POW card yet again in order to
> explain why he cannot keep track
> of how many houses he owns. Makes you wonder
> what else he cannot keep track of.
 >> Stay informed about: Petition to impeach Obama, if he wins the election 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Petition to impeach Obama, if he wins the election 

On Aug 27, 5:27 pm, That80sGuy <cl... DeleteThis @griswold.com> wrote:
> In message news:66506051-29c4-4f10-9700-
>
> 4ea6f1ef9... DeleteThis @25g2000prz.googlegroups.com, bmo... DeleteThis @nyx.net done wrote:
> >> > Ah, sounds like you're one of those kookie libertarians.
>
> >> Yeah. Like Thomas Jefferson.
>
> > No, he wasn't kookie.
>
> No libertarians are.

Really? None of them? This response makes *you* seem like a kookie
libertarian.
 >> Stay informed about: Petition to impeach Obama, if he wins the election 

On Aug 28, 7:35 am, That80sGuy <cl... RemoveThis @griswold.com> wrote:
> In messagenews:Xns9B085F64C80ABdewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@130.133.1.4, theBZA
>
>
>
>
>
> <dewey3kNOS... RemoveThis @gmail.com> done wrote:
> > That80sGuy <cl... RemoveThis @griswold.com> wrote in
> >news:Xns9B07D0029C749That80sGuy@198.186.190.61:
>
> >> In message news:66506051-29c4-4f10-9700-
> >> 4ea6f1ef9... RemoveThis @25g2000prz.googlegroups.com, bmo... RemoveThis @nyx.net done wrote:
>
> >>>> > Ah, sounds like you're one of those kookie libertarians.
>
> >>>> Yeah.  Like Thomas Jefferson.
>
> >>> No, he wasn't kookie.
>
> >> No libertarians are.
>
> > Bob Barr?
>
> Cranky, yes.  Kooky (you gotta love someone who accuses someone of being
> "kooky," and yet they misspell "kooky.")

It's slang, and either spelling is acceptable. If you're wrong about
that, maybe you're wrong about other things, too!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kookie

Adj. 1. kookie - informal or slang terms for mentally irregular; "it
used to drive my husband balmy"
bats, batty, bonkers, buggy, crackers, daft, dotty, haywire, kooky,
loco, loony, around the bend, balmy, nuts, round the bend, wacky,
whacky, nutty, barmy, loopy, fruity, cracked
insane - afflicted with or characteristic of mental derangement; "was
declared insane"; "insane laughter"

, no.
>
> Is ending the Iraq war (which Obama won't do) "kooky"?
> Is cutting spending (which McCain won't do) "kooky"?
> Is enforcing immigration law (which neither will do) "kooky"?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 >> Stay informed about: Petition to impeach Obama, if he wins the election 

On 2008-08-27 21:52:41 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman.RemoveThis@conversent.net> said:

> Kerry himself said that he was before the war before he was against
> it. There's not much I can add to that.

Sure there is. It's quite simple. You can say that the war Congress
authorized the president to wage is not the one he is waging; that
authorization was conditional and the conditions have not been met,
therefore the authorization is null and void. You can say that the
authorizaton was given by members of Congress of both parties who did
not completely read the bill through, and who instead believed claims
that later proved to be lies. You can say that Kerry is only one of
many members of Congress that have expressed regret at having voted as
they did, but is disproportionately singled out for ridicule when
members of Congress change their minds all the time.

Of course, if it's not okay to change your mind, maybe you'd like to
discuss the voting record of John McCain.
 >> Stay informed about: Petition to impeach Obama, if he wins the election 

In news:2008082808363716807-phil@nomailcom,
Phil <phil RemoveThis @nomail.com> mused:
> On 2008-08-27 21:52:41 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman RemoveThis @conversent.net>
> said:
>> Kerry himself said that he was before the war before he was
>> against it. There's not much I can add to that.
>
> Sure there is. It's quite simple. You can say that the war
> Congress........

Just jumping in here to note that you've taken my comment out of
context. But lets go on........

> authorized the president to wage is not the one he is
> waging; that authorization was conditional and the conditions
> have not been met, therefore the authorization is null and void.

Then why has the democratic Congress not lived up to its promise to
end the war if it were voted into the majority, especially if
there's no valid authorization? Only Congress can fund a war, and
so why does the democratic Congress continue to fund it?

> You can say

And you can say......... and so on, but I've always found it to be
more effective if I get to actually say what I want to say, and I
let you say what you want to say, and so on.....

> that the authorizaton was given by members of
> Congress of both parties who did not completely read the bill
> through, and who instead believed claims that later proved to be
> lies. You can say that Kerry is only one of many members of
> Congress that have expressed regret at having voted as they did,
> but is disproportionately singled out for ridicule when members
> of Congress change their minds all the time.

I could say all of that, but I haven't.

>
> Of course, if it's not okay to change your mind, maybe you'd
> like to discuss the voting record of John McCain.

I think it's perfectly fine for those in power to change their
minds, as long as there's some rationale for it. Are you under the
impression that I think otherwise? But if we're going to pick on
politicians for saying silly things, which of course, the dems love
to do (and God knows that some repubs have given them plenty of
ammunition), then I think it's perfectly fine to point out how silly
it was for a dem to say something like 'I was for it before I was
against it'. DUH! Even Kerry admitted that it was a dumb thing to
say. Get a sense of humor, will ya?
 >> Stay informed about: Petition to impeach Obama, if he wins the election 

That80sGuy <clark.TakeThisOut@griswold.com> wrote in
news:Xns9B07D0029C749That80sGuy@198.186.190.61:

> In message news:66506051-29c4-4f10-9700-
> 4ea6f1ef9685.TakeThisOut@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com, bmoore.TakeThisOut@nyx.net done wrote:
>
>>> > Ah, sounds like you're one of those kookie libertarians.
>>>
>>> Yeah.  Like Thomas Jefferson.
>>
>> No, he wasn't kookie.
>
> No libertarians are.
>
Bob Barr?

--
"I spent 5 1/2 years in a prison cell ... not
because I wanted to get a house when I got out."

- John McCain, playing the POW card yet again in order to
explain why he cannot keep track
of how many houses he owns. Makes you wonder
what else he cannot keep track of.
 >> Stay informed about: Petition to impeach Obama, if he wins the election 

That80sGuy <clark.RemoveThis@griswold.com> wrote in
news:Xns9B07AC8BF7A50That80sGuy@198.186.190.61:

> In message
> news:5a86933c-7c60-4ef2-9925-
a742bdf10a1d.RemoveThis@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com,
> bmoore.RemoveThis@nyx.net done wrote:
>
>> On Aug 27, 1:28 pm, That80sGuy <cl....RemoveThis@griswold.com> wrote:
>>> In messagenews:Xns9B079F0EBFB79dewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@130.133.1.4,
>>> theBZA
>>>
>>> <dewey3kNOS....RemoveThis@gmail.com> done wrote:
>>> > That80sGuy <cl....RemoveThis@griswold.com> wrote in
>>> >news:Xns9B078A33398A3That80sGuy@198.186.190.61:
>>>
>>> >> In messagenews:Xns9B07879F45F55dewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@130.133.1.4,
>>> >> theBZA <dewey3kNOS....RemoveThis@gmail.com> done wrote:
>>>
>>> >>> McCain hasn't even bothered to show
>>> >>> up for work for almost 5 full months now.
>>>
>>> >> If only the other 99 Senators would take his lead the country
>>> >> would be far better off.
>>>
>>> > No doubt. Then we could be just like Zimbabwe.
>>>
>>> What has the Senate recently done that warrants its continuing
>>> existence?
>>  
>>
>> Regardless, I prefer that we still have a democracy.
>
> No we don't. We have a constitutional republic. Come back when
> you've completed Fourth Grade History.
>
Actually, we have a Federal Republic even if John Schneb prefers the
term "Constitutional". We also have a Representative Democracy. These
are not mutually exclusive. BTW, I love the fact that every post you
make now is rife with name-calling and ad hominem attacks just as I
predicted. Thanks for living down to my expectations Mr. "Civilized
Debate".

And I'm still waited for you to address my original laundry list of
points against McCain which you clearly cannot do. I'll give you one
more shot and after that I will be done playing with you. You are
becoming very boring very fast.

--
"I spent 5 1/2 years in a prison cell ... not
because I wanted to get a house when I got out."

- John McCain, playing the POW card yet again in order to
explain why he cannot keep track
of how many houses he owns. Makes you wonder
what else he cannot keep track of
 >> Stay informed about: Petition to impeach Obama, if he wins the election