Wow, that's even weaker than I expected. I'm not going to waste my time looking for some of your insulting comments. Although I enjoy reading much of what you post, you sometimes come across as an intellectual elitist. You can ask for proof, but I'll just tell you to go back and read your own posts. Or, you can ask others in here how they interpret them. Maybe it makes you feel better if you think I'm singling you out and if it does, continue to believe it. But if you ask Spence, he'd probably tell you that I target him more than anyone. And he doesn't bitch and moan. He usually comes back with some witty retort. And please don't ever call me arrogant. I'm anything but that. In fact, the word I most often hear to descibe me is a-hole and I'm fine with that.

you mean "pseudo" intellectual elitist :uhuh:

sorry JD...couldn't resist:jump1:

Bush 41 got screwed over by the Dems. Bush 42 worked with the both sides on many issues.
I'm shocked that you don't find the Dems at fault at all.:rotf2:.
The arrogance of that has occured since last Jan. has stunned the nation. To you it's no big deal.

Like I said, anything I've posted that could be construed as a personal attack has almost always been as a direct response of the same on to me. Quite frankly, I don't care if you single me out or not, nor do I really care about your comments of me. On the other hand, I'm not going to sit idly and accept you chiming in as is so typical and accuse me of making personal attacks on someone, while you're hypocritically in the midst of doing the same.

It must be easy sitting in the shadows, rarely adding anything and then popping in to belittle those that don't stand up to your moral perspicacity.


:zup:

I laughed...:smash:

If you target me so frequently I'd think you'd get a hit at least once and a while :humpty:

-spence

I knew right after I posted the earlier response to your criticism of me that I should have made a comment about your recent lack of a sense of humor. I guess you didn't notice the little emoticon. You take everything way too seriously, kid. Yes, you do sometimes come across as an intellectual elitist. I don't think you really are that way, though. Comments sometimes look worse when read rather than being heard. I interpret your talking down at people who have differing opinions as insulting. Most things that I've seen directed at you by myself and others appear to be busting your marbles and not mean spirited. Maybe you're just overly sensitive when people make fun of Obama.

It's hard to hit a spinning target.:jump1: Especially one wearing fancy shoes.

Rings of an internet tough guy to me :rotf2:

how do you pronounce this? I'm really struggling...:confused:

Sounds like JD's been hitting the thesaurus again :jump1:

-spence

It was on my Word-A-Day calendar that I keep on my desk last week. Seemed like a good fit.:devil2:

I started a long defense of my posts but however logical it appears to me, I figured its wasted effort.
I know Fishbones follows it and it has nothing to do with politics, you just pick and choose points out of context to formulate some half witted argument.

Good Call.

Can someone tell me what perpicacity means? My bachelors is from a state school and they didn't have the funding to teach us words like that.

JD's looking it up right now:rotf2:

I just looked it up. Obama voters didn't have it :rotf2:

I think Jimmy called you a half wit...

There was a previous impeachment attempt that had direct bearing on the "polarization." During the inquiry into the impeachment of Richard Nixon, a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham was appointed to the staff of Jerome Zeifman, the House Judiciary Committee Chief Counsel for the proceedings. She was recommended by Ted Kennedy. She played a significant, albeit nasty role, in the inquiry. She, along with others, tried to create a scheme to deny Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation. She endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. Zeifman told her that she was wrong, that there was precedent for such counsel in the impeachment attempt of S.C. Justice William O. Douglas. And he told her that all documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary committee's public file. So, she then removed those files to her offices which were secured and inaccesible to the public. Then she wrote a legal brief arguing that THERE WAS NO PRECEDENT FOR RIGHT TO COUNSEL DURING AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING! The brief, of course, was fraudulent and ridiculous, and Zeifman believes she would have been disbarred if it had been submitted to a judge. He believes the attempt to deny Nixon counsel was to block any attempt to cross-examine Howard Hunt (the Watergate break-in mastermind), who had the goods on nefarious activities of the Kennedy administration that would have made Watergate look "like a day at the beach." There were a couple of other illegal or dirty actions by Rodham during the proceedings. As a result, Zeifman, a life-long Democrat, refused to give her a letter of recommendation "Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the constitution, the rules of the house, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality."

Much of the "polarization" that may have surfaced during Clinton's impeachment, certainly was inspired by the actions, not only of the hounding of Nixon for what was no worse than what had gone on in previous administrations (perhaps, less worse--covering up someone else's petty crime in comparison to Clinton covering up his own,) but the fact that Clinton was married to the woman who was instrumental in bringing Nixon down. And she was now "standing by her man" who was, essentialy, guilty of what she had opposed. A lot of payback, political and personal, was involved in the "polarization."

She certainly showed, later on, that same propensity to cover things up and move documents after that early foray into politics and the law. Rather than learning to be better, she learned how to do it better.

You forgot the part about Hillary pulling the trigger on Vince Foster.

-spence

There sure were alot of dead people around those two...tragic

So, if we were looking at a pie chart of why Clinton was impeached, how big would the "payback for Nixon" slice be?

Ah . . . good point. But that would not have contributed to the "polarization."

Anyway, Zeifman didn't speak about that.

Is your non sequitur supposed to discredit what he says? He was there. You were not. He was the House Judiciary Committee Chief Counsel. He was her boss, and was speaking of first, hands on, experience. Are you accusing him of, as JohnnyD would say, fabrication?

I would guess, for some of the older hands on the Republican side, it might be a big slice. But, I would guess that for most Republicans, it was pretty much the same political motivation that drove the attempt to impeach Nixon--to win the next election. Politics is a dirty business. It always has been. I pointed out the Nixon thing in response to your suggestion that the Clinton impeachment started the current "polarization." Whatever you read that suggested that to you, may have left out earlier precedents, such as the Nixon thing (which really compares closely to the Clinton impeachment) that contributed to our "polarization." Actually, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, we've always been so. I think it can be traced back to the federalist/anti-federalist debates. There seems always to be a bone of contention in our politcs between a pull toward a strong central government versus more emphasis on local rule. Even now, when both parties have evolved more strongly in the federalist direction, they are ideologically split between those who want the federal government to be more involved in what used to be matters of state, local, and even individual responsibility, and those who, at least pretend to, oppose that intrusion. And the ideological divide is diametric.

How about the motivation to impeach Nixon because he and his Administration broke the law on multiple occations simply as a matter of doing business?

-spence

The real dirty politics started with Lee Atwater who spawned Karl Rove.

As did the Kennedy Administration and just about every administration before that. Nixon was not impeached for that common "matter of doing business." The point is that he was impeached for the same type of thing as Clinton, a cover-up--a "minor" difference being that Nixon was covering up someone else's malfeasance, Cllinton was covering up his own. and lying under oath. And that "polarization" didn't start with the Clinton impeachment, but was certainly evident before that, throughout our history, and the Nixon impeachment process certainly contributed.

Nah, the real dirty politics (at least in the US) started in the 1800's with the bagmen in Indiana buying votes.

Good to know. Thanks for the information.

anytime

Anyone who really thinks that the Tea-Party is a bunch of right wing loons better take another look. I attended a local tea party a few months back and in attendance were many local professionals, the majority consisted of middle aged working folks, as well as older retired folks, there were very few college aged adults which isn't surprising. These folks are passionate about getting rid of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama as soon as possible. To write these people off as crazy is a huge mistake. There will not be enough ACORN voters to overtake these folks this go around.