Peggy Noonan's latest column hits the nail on the head.

[Bowfinger]

As I told Harvey, I think it is commendable that he has not used his moderation authority to punish attackers given the amount of personal abuse he takes. That suggests he is a very good choice for moderator, that he has demonstrated the ability to separate personal feelings from his moderator responsibilities. That's not easy in a highly polarized environment like P&N. Kudos to Harvey (and any other P&N mods who found themselves in the same boat).

:beer:

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Harvey
As a mod, yes. I've never banned anyone or given any time out for personal attacks on me. For the record, if I see something that bothers me enough on that level, I ask other mods to look at it and make their own call.

LOL! I cant count the number of times my sig has been magically edited whenever I have a gem of a quote of yours in it. Or when I point out a flaw in your logic, my post suddenly disappears. Or how when I repost what was magically deleted about you, my password has suddenly changed! Or I've temporarily been banned. But I'm sure it was just that OTHER mod that happens to be in P&N while we are in the middle of a heated discussion, only posting 2 minutes apart.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
As I told Harvey, I think it is commendable that he has not used his moderation authority to punish attackers given the amount of personal abuse he takes. That suggests he is a very good choice for moderator, that he has demonstrated the ability to separate personal feelings from his moderator responsibilities. That's not easy in a highly polarized environment like P&N. Kudos to Harvey (and any other P&N mods who found themselves in the same boat).

:beer:

Based on that I would make a great moderator. Look at the amount of abuse that I take and have I ever responded with personal attacks of any type?

ProfMod hmmmm

 

[shiner]

While we're handing out modships go ahead and hand me one to.

 

[Corn]

I can't believe I'm gonna say this.........

But in the spirit of the amnesty granted to once banned members and the fact that the mods can no longer hide behind the cover of anonymity, why not just let the past be the past.

Don't flame Harvey because of what he might have done before, flame him because of what he does and says now. I know I will.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Harvey
That's the reason for impeachment. The evidence is overwheming that Bushies have committed so many "high crimes" (felonies) that we can skip the misdemeanors.

It's in the Constitution. The time to use it is NOW.

Agreed. Bush and Co have treated the US Constitution like a piece of toilet paper. It's time they stood accountable for their actions and are tried for TREASON.

 

[ProfJohn]

You impeachment types need to get a grip on reality.

Yes Bush has made lots of mistakes, every President does, but he has not done anything that comes close to ?high crimes.?
And if you believe starting the Iraq war is a high crime then you better be prepared to kick out most of congress and every Democrat running for President as well.

BTW did anyone ever suggest we impeach Johnson for Vietnam?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You impeachment types need to get a grip on reality.

Yes Bush has made lots of mistakes, every President does, but he has not done anything that comes close to ?high crimes.?

Except for little things like treason and murder. We can skip the misdemeanors.

And if you believe starting the Iraq war is a high crime then you better be prepared to kick out most of congress and every Democrat running for President as well.

You mean the ones who were sold the lies in the cooked, stovepiped "intelligence" reports the admin sent them? Or do you mean the BS reports of yellow cake uraniaum from Niger? Or do you mean Colin Powell's bullsh8 dog and pony slide show at the U.N? Or do you mean the CondaSleazy Rice's mushroom cloud? Or do you mean all the WMD's Saddam had stashed?

What part of BULLSHIT do you not understand?

BTW did anyone ever suggest we impeach Johnson for Vietnam?

Johnson faked the Tonkin Gulf encounter to get backing for expanding the war in Viet Nam. It was wrong, it cost American lives, and it put a stain on our self image and our image around the world for decades. The only problem with trying to impeach him for that is, as Dr. McCoy said to Captain Kirk... He's dead, Jim. :shocked:

So, we're back to your same old diversion -- Someone committed a crime at some other time, and somehow, that mysteriously excuses the Bushwhackos for committing the same crimes or worse.

Johnson was wrong for fomenting a war under false pretenses. Bush is just as wrong for committing the same crime. The only difference is, Bush is still in office, we can still do something about it, and in the name of all that's right, we should.

That's not a difference between liberals and conservatives. That's not difference between Democrats and Republicans. That's not a matter of left or right. It's a matter of RIGHT VS. WRONG!

Which side of that are you on?

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You impeachment types need to get a grip on reality.

Yes Bush has made lots of mistakes, every President does, but he has not done anything that comes close to ?high crimes.?
And if you believe starting the Iraq war is a high crime then you better be prepared to kick out most of congress and every Democrat running for President as well.

BTW did anyone ever suggest we impeach Johnson for Vietnam?

Barack Obama is on record opposing it before it even began. He's running for president.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You impeachment types need to get a grip on reality.

Yes Bush has made lots of mistakes, every President does, but he has not done anything that comes close to ?high crimes.?

Except for little things like treason and murder. We can skip the misdemeanors.

And if you believe starting the Iraq war is a high crime then you better be prepared to kick out most of congress and every Democrat running for President as well.

You mean the ones who were sold the lies in the cooked, stovepiped "intelligence" reports the admin sent them? Or do you mean the BS reports of yellow cake uraniaum from Niger? Or do you mean Colin Powell's bullsh8 dog and pony slide show at the U.N? Or do you mean the CondaSleazy Rice's mushroom cloud? Or do you mean all the WMD's Saddam had stashed?

What part of BULLSHIT do you not understand?

BTW did anyone ever suggest we impeach Johnson for Vietnam?

Johnson faked the Tonkin Gulf encounter to get backing for expanding the war in Viet Nam. It was wrong, it cost American lives, and it put a stain on our self image and our image around the world for decades. The only problem with trying to impeach him for that is, as Dr. McCoy said to Captain Kirk... He's dead, Jim. :shocked:

So, we're back to your same old diversion -- Someone committed a crime at some other time, and somehow, that mysteriously excuses the Bushwhackos for committing the same crimes or worse.

Johnson was wrong for fomenting a war under false pretenses. Bush is just as wrong for committing the same crime. The only difference is, Bush is still in office, we can still do something about it, and in the name of all that's right, we should.

That's not a difference between liberals and conservatives. That's not difference between Democrats and Republicans. That's not a matter of left or right. It's a matter of RIGHT VS. WRONG!

Which side of that are you on?

A primary deflection and mental diversion of every scoundrel caught in an immoral act is to sound the drum that everybody does it.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You impeachment types need to get a grip on reality.

Yes Bush has made lots of mistakes, every President does, but he has not done anything that comes close to ?high crimes.?
And if you believe starting the Iraq war is a high crime then you better be prepared to kick out most of congress and every Democrat running for President as well.

BTW did anyone ever suggest we impeach Johnson for Vietnam?

If Johnson would have ran for and won re-election, who knows what would have happened??

 

[Michael]

If it matters, I have gone after Harvey longer and harder than almost anyone here and have never been warned, banned, or had any threads edited. I've pretty much known he was a mod for years and it didn't stop me from stating my opinion.

Now that mods are known and you can see who does and edit or bans a member, there should be less concern about the 'secret' forces against either side. I'm personally going to forget anything from the past. The way we go at it in this forum, there will be plenty of future examples to go by, so ignoring the past is easy.

I've restarted my citizenship process now that I'm back in the USA (just moved back from 3 years in Singapore). I would like to say I'm doing it to cancel out Harvey's vote, but it actually is closer to home - I need to cancel out my wife's vote. I somehow managed to marry someone that is as firmly on the left as any you'll see posting here. A few kids later and over a decade into it, I guess I'll just accept that situation.

As for impeachment, the Dems don't have the votes to do it. Unless they find something better than what Harvey has posted (they'll have to impeach themselves for the war since they voted for it), the Republicans will just block it.

Michael

 

[GTaudiophile]

I say get rid of the whole lot: President, Veep, Cabinet, Congress, Lobbyists...wipe the slate clean and start over...only this time make lobbying/bribing illegal, make the job unpaid (Congressmen only get paid for their rental in DC, health insurance, food stipend, travel expenses, staff, but no salary). While we're at it, let's remove the income tax amendment and add amendments for the line-item veto, two term limits, and a balanced budget.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Michael
As for impeachment, the Dems don't have the votes to do it.

Which clearly identifies who wants to hold the traitors and murderers accountable and get rid of them and who wants to keep them in office.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Americans can't fire the president right now, so they're waiting it out. They can tell a pollster how they feel, and they do, and they can tell friends, and they do that too. They also watch the news conference, and grit their teeth a bit.

Its the other side of American politics. We can put these guys in office. Whether its Presidents or Congressmen, we put them there. Its far easier to fire our Representatives, they come up for "hiring" every two years. Presidents get four years to prove their worth before asking us to hire them once again. Senators get 6 years, which is probably too many as they can do quite a bit of damage in 4 years and then lie low for a few till they are "re-hired"

I guess the best thing about being insulated from bad Presidents is that they only last so long. Bush will be gone in a few years. The choice we have to make is, who do we trust to hire for the next 4 years and will we have the will power or choice to fire them if necessary?

and it's too late for the '0 year curse' to be effective anymore.

the damage has been done