Congratulations America!

Chris Guynn wrote:
> "Grumman-581" <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-gmail.com> wrote in message
> newsan.2006.11.11.10.26.04.255257@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-gmail.com...
>> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 20:55:52 -0600, Joe English wrote:
>>> as far as I know he simply resigned and that is all anyone knows
>> The new guy who is taking his place is definitely taking a pay cut
>> though... His job as president at A&M had a salary of around $525,000 per
>> year... His new job is only worth $183,500...
>>
>
> Yeah, but the benefits are awesome.

The Toys!!

>
>

"Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:wA%4h.214$yE6.143@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com. ..
>
> "RecScubaPoster" <recscubaposter@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1163137291.264886.33840@h54g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> > Chris Guynn wrote:
> > > <bestweb3d@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1163088573.663762.167930@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Greg Mossman wrote:
> > > > > I almost didn't post this because I didn't want to gloat. But I
changed my
> > > > > mind.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a beautiful morning. Long Live Speaker Pelosi!
> > > >
> > > > Don't you mean "President Pelosi"?
> > > >
> > > > After the impeachments.
> > >
> > > What impeachments?
> > >
> > > You don't honestly believe that all of those moderate democrats that
were just elected are going
> to
> > > kick Bush out of office do you? Even if they do, they'd then have to
kick Cheney out of office
> too.
> > > They better work on those in conjunction because if either one gets
ousted while the other is
> still
> > > in office, the person still in office will work to quickly replace the
vacated VP position and
> > > Pelosi will never get her chance at the seat.
> > >
> > > For instance, if Bush gets kicked out, Cheney becomes president and
will then promote someone
> > > (Condi?) to take his now vacated position. If Cheney gets kicked out,
Bush would just replace
> him
> > > with someone (Condi again?) and there'd be a new VP to fill the chain
of succession.
> > >
> > > If the House manages to get them both impeached, I can't imagine that
the republicans in the
> senate
> > > would help to break a fillibuster (60% vote required if you recall) to
allow a simultaneous vote
> on
> > > their removal from office. The republicans *might* allow a vote on
one or the other. If one of
> > > them manages to get kicked out, I can't imagine that the republicans
would help to break a
> > > filibuster on the other one until after a new VP was confirmed.
Basically, you'd have a
> stalemate
> > > until the next elections in 08. If that happened, the democrats would
try to use it against ht
> > > republicans by showing that they aren't being "bi-partisan", but I
think that it would show how
> > > uni-partisan both sides are and would end up backfiring in the dems
faces and, if it had any
> effect
> > > whatsoever on the electorate, would lose seats for the dems in '08 by
showing that Pelosi and co
> > > aren't being as bi-partisan as they claimed they would be.
> >
> > I will be satisfied if the bitches are impeached even if they
> > won't/can't be convicted.
> > They broke their oaths to defend and protect the constitution. It needs
> > to go on record.
>
> Why?
>
> You already *know* that they broke their oaths, what does it matter if it
becomes "official"? Bush
> will hang up his political hat and Cheney has already said that he isn't
the least bit interested in
> becoming president, so it's not like you have to worry about them
continuing. You're stuck with
> Bush for the next two years (unless he gets convicted and kicked out of
office) so I don't really
> see the point in being happy with an impeachment if it doesn't end in
removal from office.
>
>

They impeached Clinton, so its tit-for-tat time.....

Dennis

"Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in message
news:c751e$4559a452$1860878d$25211@KNOLOGY.NET...
> "Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:wA%4h.214$yE6.143@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com. ..
> >
> > "RecScubaPoster" <recscubaposter@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1163137291.264886.33840@h54g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> > > Chris Guynn wrote:
> > > > <bestweb3d@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1163088573.663762.167930@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > Greg Mossman wrote:
> > > > > > I almost didn't post this because I didn't want to gloat. But I
> changed my
> > > > > > mind.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's a beautiful morning. Long Live Speaker Pelosi!
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't you mean "President Pelosi"?
> > > > >
> > > > > After the impeachments.
> > > >
> > > > What impeachments?
> > > >
> > > > You don't honestly believe that all of those moderate democrats that
> were just elected are going
> > to
> > > > kick Bush out of office do you? Even if they do, they'd then have to
> kick Cheney out of office
> > too.
> > > > They better work on those in conjunction because if either one gets
> ousted while the other is
> > still
> > > > in office, the person still in office will work to quickly replace the
> vacated VP position and
> > > > Pelosi will never get her chance at the seat.
> > > >
> > > > For instance, if Bush gets kicked out, Cheney becomes president and
> will then promote someone
> > > > (Condi?) to take his now vacated position. If Cheney gets kicked out,
> Bush would just replace
> > him
> > > > with someone (Condi again?) and there'd be a new VP to fill the chain
> of succession.
> > > >
> > > > If the House manages to get them both impeached, I can't imagine that
> the republicans in the
> > senate
> > > > would help to break a fillibuster (60% vote required if you recall) to
> allow a simultaneous vote
> > on
> > > > their removal from office. The republicans *might* allow a vote on
> one or the other. If one of
> > > > them manages to get kicked out, I can't imagine that the republicans
> would help to break a
> > > > filibuster on the other one until after a new VP was confirmed.
> Basically, you'd have a
> > stalemate
> > > > until the next elections in 08. If that happened, the democrats would
> try to use it against ht
> > > > republicans by showing that they aren't being "bi-partisan", but I
> think that it would show how
> > > > uni-partisan both sides are and would end up backfiring in the dems
> faces and, if it had any
> > effect
> > > > whatsoever on the electorate, would lose seats for the dems in '08 by
> showing that Pelosi and co
> > > > aren't being as bi-partisan as they claimed they would be.
> > >
> > > I will be satisfied if the bitches are impeached even if they
> > > won't/can't be convicted.
> > > They broke their oaths to defend and protect the constitution. It needs
> > > to go on record.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > You already *know* that they broke their oaths, what does it matter if it
> becomes "official"? Bush
> > will hang up his political hat and Cheney has already said that he isn't
> the least bit interested in
> > becoming president, so it's not like you have to worry about them
> continuing. You're stuck with
> > Bush for the next two years (unless he gets convicted and kicked out of
> office) so I don't really
> > see the point in being happy with an impeachment if it doesn't end in
> removal from office.
> >
> >
>
> They impeached Clinton, so its tit-for-tat time.....

I think that the impeachment of Clinton was a monumental waste of time. It resulted in absolutely
no gain for anybody (since he wasn't removed from office). Had he been removed from office, Gore
would have taken over and that *could* have been even worse. I wonder how Bush would have fared
against an incumbent Gore...

Chris Guynn wrote:
> "RecScubaPoster" <recscubaposter@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1163137291.264886.33840@h54g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> > Chris Guynn wrote:
> > > <bestweb3d@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1163088573.663762.167930@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Greg Mossman wrote:
> > > > > I almost didn't post this because I didn't want to gloat. But I changed my
> > > > > mind.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a beautiful morning. Long Live Speaker Pelosi!
> > > >
> > > > Don't you mean "President Pelosi"?
> > > >
> > > > After the impeachments.
> > >
> > > What impeachments?
> > >
> > > You don't honestly believe that all of those moderate democrats that were just
> > > elected are going
> > > to
> > > kick Bush out of office do you? Even if they do, they'd then have to kick Cheney out of office
> too.
> > > They better work on those in conjunction because if either one gets ousted while the other is
> still
> > > in office, the person still in office will work to quickly replace the vacated VP position and
> > > Pelosi will never get her chance at the seat.
> > >
> > > For instance, if Bush gets kicked out, Cheney becomes president and will then promote someone
> > > (Condi?) to take his now vacated position. If Cheney gets kicked out, Bush would just replace
> him
> > > with someone (Condi again?) and there'd be a new VP to fill the chain of succession.
> > >
> > > If the House manages to get them both impeached, I can't imagine that the republicans in the
> senate
> > > would help to break a fillibuster (60% vote required if you recall) to allow a simultaneous vote
> on
> > > their removal from office. The republicans *might* allow a vote on one or the other. If one of
> > > them manages to get kicked out, I can't imagine that the republicans would help to break a
> > > filibuster on the other one until after a new VP was confirmed. Basically, you'd have a
> stalemate
> > > until the next elections in 08. If that happened, the democrats would try to use it against ht
> > > republicans by showing that they aren't being "bi-partisan", but I think that it would show how
> > > uni-partisan both sides are and would end up backfiring in the dems faces and, if it had any
> effect
> > > whatsoever on the electorate, would lose seats for the dems in '08 by showing that Pelosi and co
> > > aren't being as bi-partisan as they claimed they would be.
> >
> > I will be satisfied if the bitches are impeached even if they
> > won't/can't be convicted.
> > They broke their oaths to defend and protect the constitution. It needs
> > to go on record.
>
> Why?

As a deterrent for future fuckwits who would have such contempt for the
constitution.

>
> You already know that they broke their oaths, what does it matter if it becomes official?
>

So our disapproval of unconstitutional behavior is on record.

>
> Bush
> will hang up his political hat and Cheney has already said that he isn't the least bit
> interested in becoming president, so it's not like you have to worry about them
> continuing.
>

It would be very satisfying want to watch the entire Shrub
administration (metaphorically) twist in the wind. (Metaphorically only
if they aren't subsequently convicted of crimes
against humanity.) It would be SO entertaining to watch Shrub testify
under oath and
without Cheney to hold his hand.

> You're stuck with
> Bush for the next two years (unless he gets convicted and kicked out of office) so I don't > really see the point in being happy with an impeachment if it doesn't end in removal from
> office.

I don't expect you see the point; you're too enamored of the Bush
administration to see its
criminality. It's just fun to watch your futile attempts to run
interference for those criminal
bastards.

"RecScubaPoster" <recscubaposter@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163567038.347564.70700@e3g2000cwe.googlegrou ps.com...
> Chris Guynn wrote:
> > "RecScubaPoster" <recscubaposter@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1163137291.264886.33840@h54g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> > > Chris Guynn wrote:
> > > > <bestweb3d@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1163088573.663762.167930@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > Greg Mossman wrote:
> > > > > > I almost didn't post this because I didn't want to gloat. But I changed my
> > > > > > mind.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's a beautiful morning. Long Live Speaker Pelosi!
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't you mean "President Pelosi"?
> > > > >
> > > > > After the impeachments.
> > > >
> > > > What impeachments?
> > > >
> > > > You don't honestly believe that all of those moderate democrats that were just
> > > > elected are going
> > > > to
> > > > kick Bush out of office do you? Even if they do, they'd then have to kick Cheney out of
office
> > too.
> > > > They better work on those in conjunction because if either one gets ousted while the other
is
> > still
> > > > in office, the person still in office will work to quickly replace the vacated VP position
and
> > > > Pelosi will never get her chance at the seat.
> > > >
> > > > For instance, if Bush gets kicked out, Cheney becomes president and will then promote
someone
> > > > (Condi?) to take his now vacated position. If Cheney gets kicked out, Bush would just
replace
> > him
> > > > with someone (Condi again?) and there'd be a new VP to fill the chain of succession.
> > > >
> > > > If the House manages to get them both impeached, I can't imagine that the republicans in the
> > senate
> > > > would help to break a fillibuster (60% vote required if you recall) to allow a simultaneous
vote
> > on
> > > > their removal from office. The republicans *might* allow a vote on one or the other. If
one of
> > > > them manages to get kicked out, I can't imagine that the republicans would help to break a
> > > > filibuster on the other one until after a new VP was confirmed. Basically, you'd have a
> > stalemate
> > > > until the next elections in 08. If that happened, the democrats would try to use it against
ht
> > > > republicans by showing that they aren't being "bi-partisan", but I think that it would show
how
> > > > uni-partisan both sides are and would end up backfiring in the dems faces and, if it had any
> > effect
> > > > whatsoever on the electorate, would lose seats for the dems in '08 by showing that Pelosi
and co
> > > > aren't being as bi-partisan as they claimed they would be.
> > >
> > > I will be satisfied if the bitches are impeached even if they
> > > won't/can't be convicted.
> > > They broke their oaths to defend and protect the constitution. It needs
> > > to go on record.
> >
> > Why?
>
> As a deterrent for future fuckwits who would have such contempt for the
> constitution.

Good luck with that. Any supposed fuckwits wouldn't get the message anyway.

>
> >
> > You already *know* that they broke their oaths, what does it matter if it becomes official?
> >
>
> So our disapproval of unconstitutional behavior is on record.

I'm pretty sure that it altready is, assuming of course that you are as much of a DNC shill as you
appear to be.

> It would be very satisfying want to watch the entire Shrub
> administration (metaphorically) twist in the wind. (Metaphorically only
> if they aren't subsequently convicted of crimes
> against humanity.) It would be SO entertaining to watch Shrub testify
> under oath and without Cheney to hold his hand.

If you say so. I wasn't all that impressed watching Clinton do it and I doubt that watching Bush do
it would be much different... maybe a few extra one-liners.

>
> > You're stuck with
> > Bush for the next two years (unless he gets convicted and kicked out of office) so I don't >
really see the point in being happy with an impeachment if it doesn't end in removal from
> > office.
>
> I don't expect you see the point; you're too enamored of the Bush
> administration to see its
> criminality.

OMG. You really have no friggin clue about me, do you?

> It's just fun to watch your futile attempts to run interference for those criminal
> bastards.

I wish that I could adequately describe just exactly how funny I find that last remark. I'm not
running interference for the Bush camp and, as a matter of fact, I really don't care if they are
impeached or not. They had 6 basically unfettered years to accomplish their goals and couldn't seem
to spend the time on the goals that *I* thought were important. I have no love lost for this
administration, but I think it's futile to try to impeach the administration because 1, they will
almost assuredly never be convicted, and 2, even if they are you won't get the outcome you desire
(Pelosi as President).