Rob offers his apologies.

Page 9 of 11  
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

You are right, Robert. I'm not myself these days. Maybe because I lost my composure during the Emmies. I am so peeved at the 'so-what' stance of my fellow warriors, that I may be expressing my disgust a little too forcefully. This, actually IS an apology. Your sense of whiffness was acute. Meanwhile
I remain, sincerely yours,
r
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Rob, it did come across as a regular wigging out. I'm not sure if venting made you feel better, but the net effect (pun intended) is detrimental to the group and serves no purpose. Strong opinions on important matters require a different forum for your voice to be heard and count for something. Otherwise it's no different than an XboX vs. PS3 flame war.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RicodJour wrote: [snipped for brevity]

The political forums (fora?) are nothing BUT a flame war. At least here, there are some intelligent participants. You'll have noticed, by now, that there will always be the 'head-up-the-ass' card-carrying voters who's minds are closed. They come in Republican (conservative) and Democtratic (liberal) flavours. Nobody seems to think anymore.
Eisenhouwer warned us about the military complex waging war for business reasons. Guess he was smarter than many.
Other than that. I just installed a new Ridgid drill press. I put in a centre bit and could not detect run-out. That means less than .0002. Unbelievable. And silky smooth too. That is a REAL 1/2 HP motor. Lots of balls.
<G>
r
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote: error:

whose?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Please note that this drill press is the product of an Eeeeeeeevvvvilllll Corporation that (gasp!) uses offshore manufacturing wherein there is no Union labor, defined benefits pensions, universal healthcare, or long paid vacations. You are quite happy to be part of the industrial "complex", you just want to pick and choose which parts of it you supports. For shame.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote: [snipped for brevity and cleanliness]

Just because I loathe WonTon soup, doesn't mean I have to stop buying Chinese tools. I am also not going stop breathing air because Ted Kennedy farts in it.
And you, Tim, better stop eating. There is no way you can be sure that the food you buy wasn't handled/processed/harvested by an illegal immigrant who slaves under the yoke of an opportunist business owner.
r
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

But see, I don't hate the military/industrial/commercial "complex". I don't think that profit is eeeeevvvviiiiill and I don't think the business world is "waging war on [us] ... for business reasons" as you insist. I also don't think that immigrants - legal or otherwise - are "slaves under the yoke of an opportunist business owner". They are people trying to make a better life for themselves. Note that "better" connotes a relative, not absolute, improvement. Your tone is silly, your examples are silly, and your ideas are silliest of all.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Do you suppose that is:
1) Because they don't discuss woodworking there?
or
2) Because they do discuss politics there?
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

They don't discuss anything beyond reciting their memorized talking points there. I briefly read alt.politics but there wasn't a thoughtful explication or an original idea to be found. At least there's some of that here - or there was until this thread descended into "Neener Neener"...

Let's remember how we got here, shall we. Some time ago, there was an extended political debate here that got pretty heated. I, in particular, got a spanking for not backing down. (FWIW, I also got private email cheering me on by some frustrated Wreckers who were tired of the lopsided Left-oriented patter that was the norm in those days.)
I pointed out then, and repeat now, that I make it a point to not introduce OT topics (unless they are humorous) but I felt (and feel) free to jump into OT chatter already-in-progress. I also affirmed my pledge to keep it that way, and shortly thereafter the noise died away. I continued to read the Wreck almost daily and was pleased to see that the Usual Suspects were keeping their posts on topic for the most part.
Then Robatoy decided to slip in a political announcement complete with a vulgar profanity *in the middle* of an on topic thread - in fact, he inserted it in the middle of a *post* without bothering not note that he was threadjacking (he has some aversion to marking his threads OT for some reason). This was both cheap and inappropriate, and I responded.
I remain to staying as on topic as the group does. I note that you, Larry, and even, these days, Tom have similarly observed this protocol. It seems that Robatoy feels that the Wreck was getting too boring and needed to vent his political spleen. The results speak for themselves.
As always, the Wreck will be what we want it to be ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote: [snipped for brevity, NOT for contextual distortion]

*Gasping for air*..such vulgarity! Hey, bro', if Cheney can say fuck, *I* can say fuck.
If you thought it was cheap and inappropriate, a simple statement to that effect would have been sufficient. Instead, you used the opportunity to get out your soapbox and to propagrandize [sic] your delusions. You took a page out of the neo-con book by overreacting well beyond the required need. But I won't feed you anymore bait, bro'...'cept one thing:
(your words, Tim)

That is, by far, the stupidest question I have ever seen. You know the answer. What little credibility you had left, just blew out of your shorts.
....here it comes again------->... you better duck.....FUCK!
r
/I'll be here all week. //move along, there's nothing to see here.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

And you are both appropriately described as low-class for doing so, noting that Cheney did so more-or-less privately but you spewed in "public".

You mean like the "simple statement" on the web site you so proudly promoted that is filled with hatred, innendo, half-truths, and bile? When you live next to a sewer, you smell like ... well you know. You bathe in an intellectual sewer and I called you out on it. The fact that you are incapable of responding beyond the "neener, neener" level of discourse is your problem. You might, perhaps, consider some adult education courses ... assuming you meet the minimal definitions of "adult".

It should thus be trivial to answer, but all we hear from you is crickets.

You have no idea how disturbing I find it that you don't consider me credible.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Okay then...answer it. Why hasn't W been impeached?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Because there is no/insufficient evidence to bring charges of impeachment against him. There is only the hot air coming from the wide open orifices of his political opponents. Even though an impeachment would not succeed because of the Republican control of the Congress, merely bringing credible charges against him would be a huge political victory for his opponents. But they have not done so *because they have no credible case to make*. "Bush Lied" is just political posturing to appeal to the feeble minded Sheeple... When/if real evidence of malfeasance on his part could be shown, the breathless gasbags of the Left will trip all over themselves to be first in line to bring charges. If such credible evidence is ever demonstrated, I will be right behind them demanding an impeachment. Somehow, I rather doubt I'll ever be in that position...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

If there is insufficient evidence it may be because there is insufficent support in the House of Representatives for impeachment hearings. Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until after the impeachment hearing had begun.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

Actually, Nixon resigned PRIOR to the House even beginning to consider the merits of the articles of impeachment. So there was no impeachment hearing. Articles of Impeachment have to have a valid basis for consideration *prior* to presenting them to Congress. This means that there must be evidence in existence. The basis for Impeachment must already be in-place.
If there is evidence that "Bush Lied", and if the lie is considered by members of Congress to rise to the level of Treason, Bribery, or Other Crimes or Misdemeanors, then the basis and facts supporting an impeachment are drawn up into Articles of Impeachment. Any group of congressfolk can do this. Democrats can do so right now, if they have the facts to support the Articles.
The Articles are then presented to the House of Representatives for acceptance and passage by a simple majority. This is where a Republican controlled house can quash an impeachment of Bush, regardless of how compelling the facts in evidence are. However, if the facts *are not* in evidence, not even a Democrat controlled House would likely risk the rath of the electorate and public opinion when it becomes clear -- during televised proceedings -- that the Democrats are trying to cover up a lack of factual evidence with a witch-hunt for unknown and hoped-for evidence.
If the Articles pass the House, an Impeachment has occured. The Articles would then go to the Senate to try Bush on the charges. Testimony and evidence presented during the trial will be the basis for the Senate to decide if the impeachment should lead to a conviction. Once the trial is complete, two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict. Conviction would automatically remove Bush from office.
So, yes, sufficient evidence *must* be in place prior to presenting the Articles to the House.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Bugg wrote:

<SNIP>
All of which points out one of my central contentions: The Bush critics largely just hate him so much that any argument, any method, or any approach is OK so long as it diminishes the administration in some way (not unlike the Right that hated Clinton with equal ferocity, though arguably with a more clear basis).
The Bush-haters argue on the one hand that he is a "lying liar who lied about everything" but when challenged with the evidence that would support his humiliation and even impeachment, they retreat to "it's ... because there is insufficient support ... to impeach him", utterly sidestepping the point that even a failed impeachment would be a source of considerable humiliation and loss of power for W (assuming there was some shred of credible evidence to support it).
Similarly, they argue that what he wants to do is "illegal". But when confronted with the murky language of the Geneva Conventions, they try and transform the debate into why what we're doing to foreign combatants does not meet the (far stricter) rules of our *domestic* laws. The next line of retreat is "well, nice people don't do those kinds of things" or "we're sacrificing *our* Liberty to get the illusion of safety" even though the current conflict is (arguably) all about *preserving* our Liberty.
So long as the central debate is about who will win the political conflict and thus not about how we will preserve the republic, we are doomed. There are a few reasoned voices from the Left I admire - Christopher Hitchens leaps to mind, so does Joe Lieberman. But since they fail the "we must win at any cost" litmus test, they are dismissed and marginalized by their own camp. And this is tragic. Hitches, particularly, makes some of the most thoughtful and reasoned arguments about why, for instance, "torture" ought not to be a part of our arsenal. He does this without appealing to US Code, the Geneva Conventions, or any of the other fictitious fabric found in most of the rest of the Left. He makes his argument based on *what is good for the nation*. It's too bad more people don't think that way. I am, and remain, highly critical of the Right, but at least they argue for their positions based on what they see as good for the free West, not on the basis of how lousy their opponents ideas are. They could be right or wrong, but at least their motivation seems decent ... I think I'll go listen to Howard Dean scream one more time now ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Rather you dismissed two clear examples of deliberate deception as 'error', an argument I rebutted here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/3f2c786cbc1c21a7?dmode=source&hl=en
To elaborate further:
The administration 'erred' by describing the 81 mm Medusa missile tubes as suitable for Uranium enrichment centrifuges the same way the tobacco company executives 'erred' when they said nicotine was not addictive and smoking was not proven to cause lung cancer. In both cases expert advice was obtained and then statements made that flatly contradicted the conclusions of their own experts.
The Bush administration did manage to find some people who said the tubes could be used for Uranium enrichment, only those people lacked the expertise of those who gave the administration an answer they didn't like.
By your standards of what constitutes 'error' the Bush adminstration would be in error, not lying, if they consulted with experts at the USNO, NOAA and the Flat Earth Society, and then announced that the Earth is flat.

Neither the USSC, which has the final authority to interpret treaties for the US, nor the ICRC which is the international body tasked with monitoring compliance with the GCs, found the language to be 'murky'.
No attempt has been to tranform 'the debate' from the Geneva Conventions to US laws. Those are separte independent arguments.
The Bush adminstration, however, prepetually tries to tranform the debate from respect for the rule of law, to "protecting the American People". The need for the latter has never been disputed, yet the Bush adminisiration acts as if debate over what is necessary and proper to accomplish that, is tatamount to treason.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/3f2c786cbc1c21a7?dmode=source&hl=en
OK, for argument's sake, let's say everything happened just the way you describe. Do you seriously consider this an impeachable level of lying? That is, does it meet the "high crimes and misdemeanors" level of prevarication? Inquiring minds wanna know.

Sez you. But, back on Planet Earth, there is real debate without trivial answers as to just how these rules are to be applied when the subject is not specifically in one of the named protected classes. You are holding your breath and turning blue because you want everyone to buy that your *interpretation* has no legitimate counter. It is political sleight-of-hand, because you *know* that a legitimate debate exists. What's fascinating about this is that I am personally mostly opposed to physical coercion beyond some basic level of psychological pressure. But the idea that we are forbidden from doing so with people caught red handed in civilian clothing while fighting our troops is laughable. You might as well suggest that the answer to the current global conflict is to get W and UBL on a room for a couple of loud verses of Kumbaya - that has about as much merit.

But are conveniently conflated when it suits your rhetorical purposes. You wandered on and on about just *who* was entitled to the privileges of our system and just *what* actually constituted our social/legal contract (and idea embedded in the very fabric of our founding philosophers). You did so in the middle of this very debate: What shall we do with non-uniformed combatants? Context is everything, and the context of your commentary on the matter of our domestic law very reasonably can be inferred to mean that you think it has at least some applicability. It doesn't and never will.

So, again, if this is so indisputably obvious, and the issues are so cut and dried (and here I thought Lefties specialized in "nuanced" thinking) why not embarrass the President by getting the Demo whiner contingent to get the impeachment ball rolling? After all, it's *obvious* you're right, and even if you can't win impeachment, the weight of your considerable "proof" for these claims will certainly undermine the power and prestige of this President.
Or ... maybe just maybe, it's just all partisan hot air - the exact same hot air that the Right spewed as it dwelt on Clinton's pathetic love life (anyone married to Hilary should be exempt from the Commandment on adultery - anything else would just be cruel) and ignored his considerable endangerments of the republic on other front. Yes indeedie, craven political ambition, and the corresponding ability to jam your ideology down the country's throat is so much more important than defending our borders and freedoms...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Of course.
Deceiving the Congress in order to indfluence their vote on what has thus far been the most important piece of legislation of the 21st Century should shurely qualify.

...
False. You conflate the two when you claim someone else is trying to 'transform' the debate.

Here we disagree.
Out government was founded on the concept that all Men are Created Equal. NOT all parties to out legal/social contact are created equal.
Due Process and Habeas Corpus, and the protection against cruel and unusual punishment, have always been applied to aliens on our soil..

Do you think that the Nation benefitted from the Clinton Impeachment? Do you think that the Republican party benefitted from the same?
Is it often the case taht those who respect only power often make the msitake of assuming that the same is true for those who oppose them.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Bugg wrote:

To be precise, the House Judiciary comittee held hearings on the Watergate break in and cover up and thereby discovered the evidence needed to support articles of impeachment. While no 'impeachment hearings' oper se were held, articles of impechment had been introduced and had Nixon not resigned, one or more would surely have been pased by the comittee. E.g. no 'impeachment hearing' per se would have been held.

Could you cite somethign to support this? I am unaware of any requirement stated in or implied by the Constitution that prohibits the House from investigating allegations and discovering evidence of an impeachable offense on its own intitiative. Indeed, historically, that seems to have been the norm. Prior to the creation of the Office of the Independent Counsel, which no longer exists, impeachment investigations were conducted by the House independently of any criminal investigations on the part of the Justice Department.

They don't even have to be Congress folk nor do they need a factual basis. But to be acted upon by the Congress an article of impeachment must first be introduced into the House or Representatives by a member of the House. That is probably what yo meant, but keep in mind that the Senate has no authority to impeach, only the House.

That is but one such opportunity. The House Republicans, and this is precisely the point I was making, have the power to quash any investigation by the House that might produce evidence of an impeachable offense by first voting against holding a hearing that might produce such evidence and then by voting against calling witnesses who might reveal such evidence at any hearings that are held.
Finally, and this is something I had never heard of prior to the present administration, the Republicans can (and have) voted to allow witnesses to 'testify' while NOT under oath or affirmation.

I modify my point slightly:
If there is insufficient evidence to support the introduction of articles of impeachment it may be because there is insufficent support in the House of Representatives to conduct the hearings that could discover that evidence.
However, I do not claim that there is insufficient evidence to support articles of impeachment, quite the contrary.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.