It took an energy crisis to come to this conclusion???!!!
Oh, and of course Humvees would be excluded!

[ August 23, 2005, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

I was going to say, "Tell me again why this idiot is in the White House"? Then I remembered other idiots voted for him.

[ August 23, 2005, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Ou Sooner 1997 ]

Be careful with your asinine sanctimony, sooner. You're offending a majority of Americans.

I wonder how you would have felt had someone like PhillyFan posted that Clinton was elected because idiots voted for him.

[ August 23, 2005, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: PhillyFan ]

Let me get this straight...

He turned down a plan two months ago for imposing higher fuel economy standards on SUVS and MV's, now he wants them, but on his terms...

What has changed except the polling numbers?

R

Policy based strictly on polling numbers?

Clinton back?

Let's correct that statement.

He was offending a majority of VOTING U.S. Americans (60.7 million voters is not a majority of U.S. Americans), as of November 2nd, 2004. I doubt he would get 60.7 million votes today.

[ August 24, 2005, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: millerbeach ]

Silly, silly, PhillyFan. If policy were dictated by poll numbers, Clinton WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED! Last I recall, he wasn't. Take your smarmy Clinton antics elsewhere. I am tired of hearing about Clinton. He is finished, been out of office nearly five years now. You can count to five, can't you?

Last I checked Clinton WAS impeached, he just wasn't removed from office. Impeachment is to charge a public official with improper conduct in office. It is the process to remove the official not the act of removal. Clinton was impeached, but not removed from office.

I am tired of hearing about Clinton as well, but equally tired of revisionist history. Leaving out the impeachment of Clinton during is second term is a big chunk of his presidency.

That's not revisionist history, that's intellectual and liguistic laziness. "Impeach" has come to mean "remove from office" among those who don't actually pay attention to the meaning of the words they use. Clinton was not removed from office, thus he was not impeached.

Sorry, JQ, if it's precision you're after, think in terms of legal precision, which governs the issue here. Like AJohnson, Clinton WAS impeached, but he was not removed from office either. THAT is the most accurate description of both events.

But to get back on track, I agree that the energy bill could and should have mandated stricter MPG requirements and emissions controls across the board. It's just not that hard and the Japanese are waaaay ahead of us on both fronts. In that sense, at least, Japan has conquered the US and achieved its dream of a "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere." What we won on the battlefields, we've apparently lost in the boardrooms.

[ August 24, 2005, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]

Clinton was impeached. That's exactly what the Congress voted.

It was ridiculous and detrimental to our nation, but that is what they voted.

[ August 24, 2005, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: dinger ]

Just an FYI from the Impeach Bush website:

What is Impeachment?
Impeachment is technically just an indictment, an accusation. Following impeachment, there is a trial and perhaps a conviction. Conviction requires removal from office. The accusation, the actual "impeachment", is made by the House of Representatives. Once impeached, the Senate conducts the trial.
Many people use the word "impeachment" to refer to the entire process. But technically it only refers to the formal accusation. Remember Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about having "sex" with Monica. He was then tried by the Senate but found not guilty and remained in office. On this website we will often use the term impeachment to refer to the entire judicial process.

Go figure, they listed ONE factual item on that website... That is a first.

I agree wholeheartedly. My final sentence was not a reflection of my opinion, but a paraphrase of how the unwashed masses see it.