XPost: 24hoursupport.helpdesk, alt.arts.poetry.comments, alt.fan.art-bell   
   XPost: rec.arts.poems   
   From: karlark@comcast.net   
      
   On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:43:36 -0600, "HEMI-Powered"  wrote:   
      
   >Will Dockery added these comments in the current discussion du   
   >jour ...   
   >   
   >>> What's this? A jab at the President-Elect in the middle of a   
   >>> discussion a bout whether or not Palin is a real Washington   
   >>> outsider? Not biting.   
   >>   
   >> Then the biggest /jab/ of all, which cost McCain the election   
   >> for good reason, is /his/ association with Bush. Such as the   
   >> quote that he agreed with him "%99" percent of the time.   
   >   
   >No, this isn't an "association" at all. Except that we only have   
   >one president at a time. But, why don't you tell me what this   
   >means:   
   >   
   >Article II   
   >Section. 4.   
   >The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the   
   >United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,   
   >and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and   
   >Misdemeanors.   
   >   
   >There have been some 35 or more articles of impeachment bloviated   
   >into the Congressional Record by the perennial gadfly, Dennis   
   >Kuchinich yet even Nancy Pelosi thinks him the fool to the extent   
   >that she won't even allow these articles to be evaluated by any   
   >committees. So, absent a formal impeachment adoption and at least   
   >a trial in the Senate, I'd say that President Bush is hardly a   
   >known terrorist (Ayers) one who promotes the destruction of   
   >Israel (Khalidi), an anarchist (Jeremiah Wright), a traitor and   
   >racist (Louis Farrakhan) or a drug dealer (Obama's roomie in   
   >Harlem during his Columbia days.   
   >   
   >Nice try, but no cigar.   
   >   
   >> The strongest reason to vote NO to four more years of a stolen   
   >> presidency of all.   
   >   
   >Actually, I agree with this - for 2000.   
   >   
   >> Yes, the Lincoln statements today are very interesting, giving   
   >> rise to interesting fantasies of Obama hiring Hillary and even   
   >> McCain... but, gorgeous muse to write poetry about she may be,   
   >> she has a ways to go before she'd be in a position to be hired   
   >> by Obama, in my opinion.   
   >   
   >Cabinet members aren't hired, they are appointed and serve at the   
   >pleasure of the president, IF confirmed by the Senate so aren't   
   >we getting a little ahead of things? I don't know if Hillary is   
   >dumb enough to give up her seat, but I would hardly believe that   
   >McCain would prostitute himself for a no-nothing minor cabinet   
   >post.   
   >   
   >> I could be wrong, though, and perhaps Sarah Palin could be   
   >> seen as a suitable fill-in for Hillary (which seems to have   
   >> been the Republican plan of putting her on the ticket in the   
   >> first place, stupidly thinking that they'd snag the   
   >> women-for-H vote, although they had pretty much nothing in   
   >> common beside the obvious "babe" factor) and McCain in the   
   >> Lincolnesque "using the losers" strategy, which not only puts   
   >> their talents on his team, but possibly nullifies their   
   >> chances of giving him a run in a future contest.   
   >>   
   >There was a hope that women would go for Palin, and even some NOW   
   >chapter presidents DID endorse her. But, let's get down to brass   
   >tacks. Women's libbers will not endorse anyone who isn't for   
   >murdering fetuses in some bullshit claim about "a woman's right   
   >to choose." Yes, a woman DOES have a choice and it is life or   
   >death for their baby.   
      
   1. Contradict much? 1) "even some NOW chapter presidents DID endorse her; 2)   
   "libbers will not endorse anyone who isn't for blah blah blah".   
      
   2. You claim you aren't out their with Rush on the fringe and then come up with   
   utter bullshit like "Women's libbers will not endorse anyone who isn't for   
   murdering fetuses in some bullshit claim about "a woman's right to choose.""   
   ???   
   It's the reactionary rightwing nutjobs, like you're shaping up to be since I   
   started reading this, that are one-issue voters. Afterall, if NOW chapter   
   presidents endorsed her, it appears that women may have differing opinions on   
   choice or will rank it down the list. Whereas there is only one issue for you   
   guys and you were willing to bet on Sarah's vagina that Rush's crowd agreed.   
      
   I've said more than I meant to - you began with the ad hominem's in your recent   
   post to me and I understand now that you are indeed speaking from that wavery   
   limb alongside Limb.   
      
   Bye.   
      
   Karla   
      
   >I doubt that AK Sen. Ted Stevens will win his re-election bid,   
   >but Palin could easily nominate herself to succeed him if/when he   
   >steps down, or she could call a special election and nominate   
   >herself.   
   >   
   >BTW, has anybody found out what Biden intends to do, be vice   
   >president or continue as the senior Senator from Delaware? Didn't   
   >he win re-election? There is no Constitutional ban on running for   
   >more than one office but actually holding more than one IS   
   >prohibited.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)