Arguging with the right is an endless and useless task.

I think George Washington had the best idea. You take a right winger and take a left winger, put them into office, and they will eventually work out an issue that will please both sides.

It's the same for all cases in which you are arguing against someone with different values and opinions.

does this really have anything to do with right/left? Clinton/Bush is one in the same. Kerry/Bush is one in the same. Kerry supported the war in Iraq. Hard to argue the supposed left is any better than the right when they come to the same conclusions. Same goes for conservatives/liberals in canada. Their the same.

I agree with that too a point Ninty. I think there are lots of things that make both parties very similar, but I think that there are some definitive ways in which each party differs from the other.

maybe on some things, but on others they will get stuck and nothing will get done. Washington couldn't have seen the party system as it is now, he was staunchly anti-political parties so he would have preferred if there weren't any.

Didn't Lincoln do that?

[quote:d7314]Main Entry: 1im·peach
Pronunciation: im-'pEch
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English empechen, from Middle French empeechier to hinder, from Late Latin impedicare to fetter, from Latin in- + pedica fetter, from ped-, pes foot -- more at FOOT
1 a : to bring an accusation against b : to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office
2 : to cast doubt on; especially : to challenge the credibility or validity of <impeach the testimony of a witness>
3 : to remove from office especially for misconduct[/quote:d7314]