molson_golden2002

Two things. Anyone who says "in this day and age" should not be taken seriously. I suppose the South Carolinians who found slave traders innocent of the crime in spite of overwhelming evidence were an aberation? Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence. That very isue was discussed in that august document. Where juries are from has always been a major issue. Jury impartiality has been an issue ever since they started using them. Secondly, in the end it will be the American people who will have to be convinced of Bush's guilt, hence the need for investigations to produce evidence. Something the 109th Congress roadblocked all the way down the road.

You got it all wrong there son. To the right wing quasi-fascists an investigation is a formality, or even a made for tv propaganda event. Colin Powell's pathetic presentation to the UN springs to mind. Not to us. We actually plan. We actually think and ask questions. We understand that reality isn't what we make it. So its time to go fishing and see what we can't find. No pre-emptive strike here. No rushing to battle unprepared, without a plan. If this can be done it will have to be done in a way that insures victory. So I think Bush is a dispicable creatin--ever see him looking under that desk as a joke for WMD? LOL, boy that was funny! Especially since our boys were dying at the time actually looking for them. But that's not the point. He deserves to be impeached, but the legal case will have to be built. If it can't the boy blunder can retire and see all his die hard southern supporters and the rest of the fools who love him at his $500 million libraryland.

yes

Spikes gets carried for 5 yards

Alright!

Sack!

Some of the other scores around the league are shocking! Miami beats New Engl;and 21-0?? And the Colts give up 44 points? Guess they miss Triplett. And ya, Lee dropped that one it looked like

Oh just little things like tens of billions of dollars lost in Iraq, what went on in the energy task force Cheney wanted kept secret, the intelligence on leading up to the war, the lying to congress on the cost of the prescription drug program and yes, stuff, stuff we find in investigations. And no, we are not talking about a blow job that got the Southern Conservative base so fired up 8 years ago, we are talking about serious issues. I want Bush impeached, but you have to do the ground work first. Investigate, expose, impeach and then imprison. In my opinion he has murdered almost 3,000 young Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. He should be held accountable to more than just the Jesus being.

Not an obituary pal, but it does show that the GOP has a serious problem. It seems chained to a lunitic, i.e. the South. Will be interesting to see how the evolve or devolve as a party. The Wash Post also has Conservative writes like the frail little George Will.

There is no solution to the Iraq mess except to get out. One thing is clear, Bush's main objective in Iraq now is to dump it on the next President. That's it.

Won't go very far. Wait untill the investigations get rolling in House and Senate. They should start to turn up some stuff soon enough.

Seems to me like you build an offensive line by drafting them in the 3rd and 4th rounds. And maybe adding a first rounder to the mix

Uncommon Valor was simply a terrific book! Another book, though much less favorable to the military was Nam by Mark Baker Both great books

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/us/polit...=1165726800&en= 1b882f9a7cae6ec8&ei=5094&partner=homepage WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 — Gov. Mitt Romney, the Massachusetts Republican who has built a presidential campaign on a broad appeal for conservative support, is drawing sharply increased criticism from conservative activists for his advocacy of gay rights in a 1994 letter. Mr. Romney’s standing among conservatives is being hurt by a letter he sent to the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts saying that he would be a stronger advocate for gay rights than Senator Edward M. Kennedy, his opponent in a Senate race, in a position that stands in contrast to his current role as a champion of a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. “We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern,” Mr. Romney wrote in a detailed plea for the support of the club, a gay Republican organization. The circulation of the letter by gay rights groups in recent weeks has set off a storm of outrage among social conservatives, and by Friday was looming as a serious complication to Mr. Romney’s hopes. Aides to Mr. Romney, who did not dispute the letter’s legitimacy, said that the governor’s opinions on gay issues had not changed. They said Mr. Romney had always been an opponent of same-sex marriage, had always opposed discrimination against gay men and lesbians and had been consistent in his views about allowing them to serve in the military. “Governor Romney believes Americans should be respectful of all people,” said Eric Fehrnstrom, his spokesman. “However, over the past four years as governor, Mitt Romney has not advocated or supported any change in the military’s policies and he has not implemented new or special rights in this area.”

I think this is great! And he provides many facts to back up what I said, namely, the GOP was in danger of becoming a regional, out of touch party. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...AR2006120601671. html You've seen the numbers and understand that America is growing steadily less white. You try to push your party, the Grand Old Party, ahead of this curve by taking a tolerant stance on immigration and making common cause with some black churches. Then you go and blow it all in a desperate attempt to turn out your base by demonizing immigrants and running racist ads against Harold Ford. On Election Day, black support for Democrats remains high; Hispanic support for Democrats surges. So what do you do next? What else? Elect Trent Lott your deputy leader in the Senate. Sure locks in the support of any stray voters who went for Strom in '48. ...... In case you haven't noticed, a fundamental axiom of modern American politics has been altered in recent weeks. For four decades, it's been the Democrats who've had a Southern problem. Couldn't get any votes for their presidential candidates there; couldn't elect any senators, then any House members, then any dogcatchers. They still can't, but the Southern problem, it turns out, is really the Republicans'. They've become too Southern -- too suffused with the knee-jerk militaristic, anti-scientific, dogmatically religious, and culturally, sexually and racially phobic attitudes of Dixie -- to win friends and influence elections outside the South. Worse yet, they became more Southern still on Election Day last month, when the Democrats decimated the GOP in the North and West. Twenty-seven of the Democrats' 30 House pickups came outside the South. The Democrats won control of five state legislatures, all outside the South, and took more than 300 state legislative seats away from Republicans, 93 percent of them outside the South. As for the new Senate Republican caucus that chose Mississippi's Lott over Tennessee's Lamar Alexander to be deputy to Kentucky's Mitch McConnell, 17 of its 49 members come from the Confederacy proper, with another three from the old border states of Kentucky and Missouri, and two more from Oklahoma, which is Southern but with more dust. In all, 45 percent of Republican senators come from the Greater South. More problematic, so does most of the Republican message. Following the gospel according to Rove (fear not swing voters but pander to and mobilize thy base), George W. Bush and the Republican Congress, together or separately, had already blocked stem cell research, disparaged nonmilitary statecraft, exalted executive wartime power over constitutional niceties, campaigned repeatedly against gay rights, thrown public money at conservative churches and investigated the tax status of liberal ones. In the process, they alienated not just moderates but Western-state libertarians. The one strategist who fundamentally predicted the new geography of partisan American politics is Tom Schaller, a University of Maryland political scientist whose book "Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South" appeared several months before November's elections. Schaller argued that the Democrats' growth would occur in the Northeast, the industrial Midwest, the Mountain West and the Southwest -- areas where professionals, appalled by Republican Bible Beltery, were trending Democratic and where working-class whites voted their pocketbooks in a way that their Southern counterparts did not. Al Gore carried white voters outside the South, Schaller reminded us; even hapless John Kerry came close. The challenge for Republicans -- and for such presidential aspirants as John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney in particular -- is how to bridge the widening gap between their Southern base and the rest of the nation. The persistence of Southern exceptionalism is clear in the networks' exit polls, in which fully half of Southern voters identified themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians, while just one-third of the entire nation's voters did so. It's clear from the fact that in a period of broad economic stagnation, the populism of working-class Southern whites, like a record stuck in a groove, remains targeted more against cultural than economic elites.

Oh brother. Hindenburgh allowed the Nazis to control the biggest police force in Germany, the Prussian one, and Hitler's fat ass buddy Goring used that to Nazify it. That made the 'minority' position you speak of very powerful. And you do know Ludendorf--an apolitical general, lol--was part of the Beer Hall putsch? And FDR and the economy. He didn't start Depression, he didn't sign the Smoot-Hawley Tariff that deepened it, and while he may not have ended it with the New Deal his reforms sure as helped ensure there hasn't been another one. He made huge contributions to making prosperity a reality to millions in America. The TVA, for example, made the modern south possible. Ever see a picture of North and South Korea? How at night the North is completely blacked out. Well, the American south was basically like that into the mid-1930's. Private companies wouldn't electrufy the region and it took FDR and the New Deal. If that's 'centraization' so be it!

True, he was all about the Soviet Union, and really, he did not have the strength to conquer them even. Now, had Hitkler's scientists developed the atomic bomb first, well, who knows

Bush will probably be a televangelist

That first sentence just kills me!!! They knew what happened in Poland and did nothing. The mass murder of the entire educated population and the Generals only asked where to fight next. Ya, they would have been great choices to turn the country over to. Ludendorf and Hidenburg accepted the Weimar Republic, at least for awhile, but who appointed Hitler chancellor? FDR made the depression survivable for the people, that's why the elected him 3 times and a forth to win the war. He saved the banking system, got people work, brought electricity to the south, created social security, regulations on business to try and stop cheaping. Great president!

Wonder if they put off having a child until after the election?

I'm sure the German generals who looked the other way while Hitler committed horrible attrocities wanted to avoid losing the war, no doubt. Roosevelt was right to demand unconditional surrender, Germany had to be torn up and remade. Communism sucked but something had to be done. Had he allowed a coup to repalce Hitler who knows what would have replaced it. And this 'centrally planned economy' thing. Please tell us what you mean. He saved capitalism by using stronger government controls. Good! Dictator? Whatever

FDR was a great President. You take one thing he id and make a mountain out of it. The Unconditional Surrender stance was a direct result of the fact we didn't do that in WW1, and look what happened there. We had to bomb them into submission and no more "stab in the back' theories for the next Hitler. Truman and the bomb? I dunno. But he was in the lead on Truman and Marshall plans so your history is all wrong. The Taft wing of the Republican party is the one that needed to be convinced of the need for it. I hate Woodrow Wilson, too. Idiot, reminds me of Bush. Grant, well, he wasn't good at much but being a great general. What long term harm did he do though? Clinton was simply an average president who lived in boring times and had a rabid, Conservative Congress to deal with. The Southern strategy was at its hight for the far right and Clinton did all he could to beat them down. Best part of Republican 'Southern Strategy' is that they are now stuck with having to appease the far right southern Conservatives to win the Presidential nomination. Should be fun!

I really like Thomas Friedman on this topic. He seems to get it. The GOP congress that is about to thankfully expire was so tied to big oil that nothing could get done. The big oil companies were basically using America to make as much of a killing as they could and screw the rest. The Democrats will probably be tied to big coal but hoepfully there will be enough wiggle room there for them to spend some serious money on alternative energy. For the hundreds of billions wasted on this Children's Crusade to Iraq we could be well along the way to having a new economy built on reliable American sources. We could have said "Take your oil and stuff it Iran!" Oh well, so goes the world.

I figured as much. An answer with no substance and merely insults. Nothing but a parrot of right wing mumbo jumbo. I guess the 197o's energy crisis was all Carter's fault, too.