For a bunch of people who are always yammering about how important every vote is the Democrats have no problem doing away with the 2004 election. Oh well, the only elections they support are the ones they win.

This is the kind of stuff that those on the Right who are going a little wobbly should understand.

Even if they don't like the candidate, their mantra should be "anybody but Democrats."

on drudge report: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2585531

news head line is "North Korean General: ' War is Inevitable' "

on the first line of the story: "IF President Bush continues to ask North Korea to "kneel," war "will be inevitable," ...North Korean Gen. Ri Chan Bok told "Good Morning America" anchor Diane Sawyer.

The quotation allegedly given by the North Korean General (as seen in the headline), that 'War IS inevitable', is nowhere in the article.

How can the media get away with such a blatant misquotation? I know the media puts their slant and lies about things all the time, but this seems extraordinary.

Sooooooooooo this is what your Democrat Senators and Representatives have been doing for the past few years. Instead of working for the people, they've been planning their equivalent of suing to obtain power. This goes right along with one of their core beliefs of "everybody is a victim." If they lose elections, they are "victims" and, thus, must sue to compensate. Freud would would be able to fill volumes after observing the current state of mind of many of today's Democrats.

LOL - People, Confederate Yankee himself points out the source here is "dubious". Yes, some of the more enthusiastically anti-Bush Congressional Democrats might like to try impeachement. However the more powerful Democrats remember the voter backlash against the Republicans when they did the frivolous impeachment thing against Clinton in 1998 and will not stick their head in the same noose.

It is true there might be a move to censure the President, but that is actually a pretty reasonable response to a President who says untrue things to manipulate the public into supporting a war against a country that had not attacked us (untrue does not mean he knowingly lied, just that he says things that are not true through honest incompetence).

If Republicans are so hard up for good reasons to vote red this year that they have to seize on this one, I guess Ms. Pelosi can start measuring the windows in the majority leaders's office for her curtains.

...and will not stick their head in the same noose.

Appeasment of the moonbats will dictate they try it if they want to keep the far left energized in 08'.

Purple Avenger - Don't worry about keeping those moonbats energized. As long as Bush is President, they will have more than enough energy to keep them bouncing off the walls. You don't really think that if the Congressional Democrats do not try to impeach President Bush, the moonbats are not going to still work their butts off to defeat the Republicans in 2008? You know they will, and what you know, Pelosi and Reid also know. They can take that energy for granted and play the "responsible stateman" role to set up the Dems for 2008.

The only problem from their point of view is if there are too many moonbat Congressman and Senators to keep under control. Short answer: there are not. And if the Dems do take congress, many of the new people will be from red states and a further moderating influence. I really don't see Ford (TN) or Tester (MT) out there pushing for impeachment.

I absolutely love the way that some shmoe comes up with this off-the-wall idea about pending impeachment proceedings and all the wingnuts here run wild with it. "I saw it on them there Internets! It must be true! Them moonbats! What're they gonna think of next to destroy Amurica, Cleroy?"

News flash, dipsticks: you run the whole friggin' government. All three branches. You have for years. How far do you think those House resolutions are going to go with a Republican majority?

Get a brain! Morans!

How far do you think those House resolutions are going to go with a Republican majority?

How much investigation and gyration will about $100,000,000 (+/- $50M) worth of taxpayer money buy? That's about how far I think they'll go.

Sleepy, Dopey, Sneezy, Doc -

I absolutely love the way that some shmoe comes up with this off-the-wall idea about pending impeachment proceedings and all the wingnuts here run wild with it. "I saw it on them there Internets! It must be true! Them moonbats! What're they gonna think of next to destroy Amurica, Cleroy?"

H.R. 635, H.R. 636, H.R. 637? So, you're admitting that Conyers and his 37 co-sponsors are shmoes? Pelosi will not rule an impeachment out, she says they'll start investigations and see where it leads them. Are you admitting Pelosi is a shmoe too?

There are several impeachbush websites. There is a pac specifically for that purpose. The Nation is calling for impeachment. Democrats.org is calling for impeachment. To name a few. Are you saying they are all schmoes?

News flash, dipsticks: you run the whole friggin' government. All three branches. You have for years.

And the poor little Democrats have absolutely no say in the legislation?

Why don't we have private accounts for Social Security then?

Why are any judicial appointments still on hold then?

Why aren't there tougher immigration laws then?

Why are looney liberals not stifled in speech and jailed in person?

Are you saying that, if Dems take over, there will be a cozy power sharing model where Republicnas will have co-equal say in the legislation that comes forward?

You are appearing to be a bigger dipstick and you're at least a quart low.

Well, SouthernRoots, yes. All the persons you mentioned are, in fact, shmoes. They're all shmoes in Washington. Why haven't you realized that? Some are just more shmoe-riffic than others.

Anyway, though it wasn't clear in my post, I was referring to the shmoes at FrontPageMag.

As to your points: as you well know, parliamentary rules make it possible for a minority to slow down or block action, but not to make legislation go through. Democrats, therefore, can keep various bad Republican ideas from being enacted, but they wouldn't be able to make impeachment happen as a minority party.

The Democrats aren't going to take back either house in November. Stop the scare tactics. They're pointless.

Finally: you are saying that progressives should be imprisoned simply because you don't like their ideas, and that only parliamentary procedure is keeping that from happening. The inner Nazi revealed at last! Sieg heil, mein herr! The Southern Reich shall rise again!

Why do you hate America?

Ummm... Some above seem to be suggesting that the Dems have no intention of running a preposterous impeachment schtick.

Here, from the Library of Congress site, are HR 635, HR 636,and HR 637.

Conyers is the sponsor for each and each has a list of cosponsers (19) that represents the Schtormtorpors of the Traveling Moonbat Menagerie.

Sleepy, Dopey, Sneezy, Doc -

I already believed they were schmoes, I was just taken aback that you would admit it.

"but they wouldn't be able to make impeachment happen as a minority party."

That was part of the point of the post. If they weren't the minority party, would they try harder to impeach?

With all the MSM trumpeting of any and all polls showing Dems in the lead, why are you so certain they won't take over? I don't think they will, but then, I'm an optimist.

Finally, I put a line in satrizing the hyperventalation the left has done over the detainee act, the patriot act, and the Republicans being in power, and how your speech has been stifled and your liberties severly restricted. If you weren't able to pick up on that, I do apologize. I'll type slower next time so you can understand.

As for your penchant to leap to Nazi conclusions, well, it would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. Is that how you always end discussions when your feelings are hurt? You need to work on newer, better insult material.