RE: House votes to pull troops from Iraq by April

RE: House votes to pull troops from Iraq by April (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: House votes to pull troops from Iraq by April (7/13/2007 11:48:53 AM)
But what next? Here is Senator Reid's non-answer: Video Link: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3374379 quote: Sinergy: Which means that even more Republicans and anybody else who doesn't vote to override his veto will be looking for work next election. I hope you are right. quote: thompsonx: This is just "feel good legislation" that allows one side to blame the other without doing anything constructive that is in line with the wishes of their constituency. Same mud different day. Afraid you are right. Unless more people act upon Sinergy's idea.

thompsonx -> RE: House votes to pull troops from Iraq by April (7/13/2007 11:55:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth But what next? Here is Senator Reid's non-answer: Video Link: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3374379 quote: Sinergy: Which means that even more Republicans and anybody else who doesn't vote to override his veto will be looking for work next election. I hope you are right. quote: thompsonx: This is just "feel good legislation" that allows one side to blame the other without doing anything constructive that is in line with the wishes of their constituency. Same mud different day. Afraid you are right. Unless more people act upon Sinergy's idea. Mercnbeth: If you mean by that statement that they (the elected representatives of the people) would actually do what they are paid to do then I want some of what you are smokin'[;)]...that is an "if" I have seldom seen happen. Nothing they have done so far would indicate that that would be their intention. thompson

Mercnbeth -> RE: House votes to pull troops from Iraq by April (7/13/2007 12:07:29 PM)
quote: If you mean by that statement that they (the elected representatives of the people) would actually do what they are paid to do then I want some of what you are smokin'[;)]...that is an "if" I have seldom seen happen. Well thompsonx, I've been accused of being a cynical, pessimistic, do nothing, trying to maintain the status quo - I'm just trying to amend my image. But they are doing what they are being "paid to do"; by their 'full time' employers the people and industries represented by PACS. The interests of their constituency and the salary obtained from that position is strictly part-time. Unless you feel that someone like Mayor Bloomberg or any other front line, rich political player such as John Edwards, or Rudy Guilianni, spend of millions of personal dollars, or $100 Million in Bloomberg's case, to get a job paying less than I make in a year. Oh yeah - they all have altruistic reasons and want to "serve" the people. [sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif] Regarding the "smoke" - you'll have to check with beth. Although she's trying her best - she's still the evil smoking one of the two of us.

thompsonx -> RE: House votes to pull troops from Iraq by April (7/13/2007 12:22:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: If you mean by that statement that they (the elected representatives of the people) would actually do what they are paid to do then I want some of what you are smokin'[;)]...that is an "if" I have seldom seen happen. Well thompsonx, I've been accused of being a cynical, pessimistic, do nothing, trying to maintain the status quo - I'm just trying to amend my image. But they are doing what they are being "paid to do"; by their 'full time' employers the people and industries represented by PACS. The interests of their constituency and the salary obtained from that position is strictly part-time. Unless you feel that someone like Mayor Bloomberg or any other front line, rich political player such as John Edwards, or Rudy Guilianni, spend of millions of personal dollars, or $100 Million in Bloomberg's case, to get a job paying less than I make in a year. Oh yeah - they all have altruistic reasons and want to "serve" the people. [sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif] Regarding the "smoke" - you'll have to check with beth. Although she's trying her best - she's still the evil smoking one of the two of us. Mercnbeth: A cynic and a pessimist are not the same thing and in fact are antithetical to one another. The pessimist sees the glass as half empty. The cynic wants to know why there is a chip in the rim of his supposedly new cup, why there is tap water in it when he paid for distilled and who is making the money on this fraud. I see you as the later and not the former. It is only evil if you are a nicotine junquie. thompson

Mercnbeth -> RE: House votes to pull troops from Iraq by April (7/13/2007 12:48:03 PM)
quote: By a vote of 223 to 200, the House passed a bill to pull troops from Iraq. Dude, Actually, no they didn't. From the Bill: quote: Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2956) to require the Secretary of Defense to commence the reduction of the number of United States Armed Forces in Iraq to a limited presence by April 1, 2008, and for other purposes I added the emphasis to the word "reduction". These are politicians - reduction is not equal to pull out. There are no numbers. One man/woman reduced complies with the resolution. It goes on to confirm that concept. Projecting out to April 2008: quote: Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2956) to require the Secretary of Defense to commence the reduction of the number of United States Armed Forces in Iraq to a limited presence by April 1, 2008, and for other purposes. Care to bank on a definite number assignment to "limited"? Obviously it's greater than zero. Politicians and their use (deliberate?) of language to misdirect and distract - 'ya gotta love em huh? And the media not only drinking the kool-aide but passing it around: Here's a sample headlines regarding he bill: Seattle Post Intelligncer: "Washington's House Democrats vote for pullout" http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/323521_iraqcongress13.html Nowhere disclosing this is only a call for reduction or pointing to the "limited presence" language. Read the Bill and make your own judgement. Link to H.R 2956: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110zflyce::

popeye1250 -> RE: House votes to pull troops from Iraq by April (7/13/2007 1:02:20 PM)
First of all it's not a "war." It's an occupation just like Vietnam. Only The Congress can declare war. And only The Congress can fund it. (Funding has to origionate in the House not the Senate) If, as John McCain is trying to tell us "if we quit, they'll follow us home", then wouldn't you think ol' "Straightjact Express" would be interested in securing our borders? (HELLO Senator McCain!) We have 150,000 Troops in Iraq and 160,000 Contractors. This is a Lobbyist's "war." They and all the companies involved are picking the pockets of the U.S. Taxpayers! And they're stealing BILLIONS!

Politesub53 -> RE: House votes to pull troops from Iraq by April (7/13/2007 1:03:31 PM)
Wow some really thought provoking stuff. If you ever get any politicians that actually listen to the people, please be so kind and ship a few across the pond. [;)] In the 18 Hundreds when the British marched with ease into Afghanistan. The local tribal chief in Kabul said " Its easy marching in, but tell me how you are going to march out ! " When we eventually withdraw a complete column of 17,000 were killed en route back through the Kyber Pass. Bar one man left to tell the tale. Some things never change huh

Sinergy -> RE: House votes to pull troops from Iraq by April (7/13/2007 1:06:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Jesus, do you think Pelosi is afraid Cindy could win? I think so. I tend to think that Pelosi was given control of Congress as a mandate from the Democrats to end this silly fiasco. Near as I can figure, we are still over there. Pelosi is probably worried that somebody with enormous name recognition and tremendous popularity and a reputation for going out of her way to do unpopular things because she believed they needed to be done, could conceivably unseat her. Time to make some popcorn and watch the fireworks. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: House votes to pull troops from Iraq by April (7/13/2007 1:08:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 We have 150,000 Troops in Iraq and 160,000 Contractors. My questions is whether Blackwater and their ilk will maintain a presence in Iraq after our soldiers go home. Sinergy

NorthernGent -> RE: House votes to pull troops from Iraq by April (7/13/2007 1:14:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HydroMaster quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 That's a very good point.... History had a tendency to forget things. Even though Eisenhower got the US involved in Vietnam....who got the blame for that war? JFK, LBJ, and the Democrats. The Democrats are going to inherit this war, like it or not. And if the first thing the Dems do when they have power in 2009 is a complete pull out and Iraq falls into Civil War.... Guess who history is going to get the blame for losing the war...Democrats. Just like new management in a company. Does all the problems and failings of the previous management just suddenly go away? NOPE! Now it is up to the new management to fix the problems and set the company straight. If not, then the new management also gets the boot and will now share the blame for the company's failings. Hmm, no I see the blame remaining on Bush for a long long time. I don't intend to blame either really. It's a screwed up situation started by an equally screwed up situation. Just a nastly chain reaction. The terrorists attacked us in reaction to us butting in on their culture, we reacted and attack them, they reacted and waged a guerilla war on us. I can't see the outcome being much different regardless of who was in power. I do know the US as a whole will be blamed and targeted for years if not decades to come no matter what we do to try to fix it. One huge flaw in the argument. The US government didn't react and attack terrorists. They found an excuse to dominate Iraq and create an open economic system open to US interests, as per US foreign policy for decades. Nor did the terrorists attack the US for "butting in on their culture". They attacked the US because of decades of economic dominance over that region e.g. overthrowing democratic governments in Iran, dictating unfair trade agreements etc. You want to stop all of this, keep the US government out of the Middle East. 'Problem is that the US economy is underpinned by controlling the supply of oil. The other problem is that the European economy is to an extent dependent on the success of the US economy - hence the support from the British government. Personally, I think they're there for the long haul. You can see this in the embassy they're building - the size of a small village. Ultimately, you'll have policitians weighing up the political costs of invasion/withdrawal and they'll come to this conclusion: people will accept dead Iraqis, but they won't accept rising prices at home.

Mercnbeth -> RE: House votes to pull troops from Iraq by April (7/13/2007 1:25:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Jesus, do you think Pelosi is afraid Cindy could win? I think so. I tend to think that Pelosi was given control of Congress as a mandate from the Democrats to end this silly fiasco. Near as I can figure, we are still over there. Pelosi is probably worried that somebody with enormous name recognition and tremendous popularity and a reputation for going out of her way to do unpopular things because she believed they needed to be done, could conceivably unseat her. Dead on assessment. If you spend any time at all in Representative Pelosi's district you'd know why she is concerned. These are adamant people. As angry at her, if not more angry, than President Bush right now. Ms. Pelosi can't stand behind the representation that she doesn't have the power to initiate actions. If this turns into a one-issue race Ms. Sheehan can win, or have impact, with good campaign management. Casting a vote for Ms. Sheehan will be seen as a vote against the status quo. This session of Congress, under new management, has opened the eyes of many and they see clearer than ever that their is very little, if any, difference between the predominant political parties. I view it as a glimmer of hope for change.

thompsonx -> RE: House votes to pull troops from Iraq by April (7/13/2007 1:47:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Jesus, do you think Pelosi is afraid Cindy could win? I think so. I tend to think that Pelosi was given control of Congress as a mandate from the Democrats to end this silly fiasco. Near as I can figure, we are still over there. Pelosi is probably worried that somebody with enormous name recognition and tremendous popularity and a reputation for going out of her way to do unpopular things because she believed they needed to be done, could conceivably unseat her. Dead on assessment. If you spend any time at all in Representative Pelosi's district you'd know why she is concerned. These are adamant people. As angry at her, if not more angry, than President Bush right now. Ms. Pelosi can't stand behind the representation that she doesn't have the power to initiate actions. If this turns into a one-issue race Ms. Sheehan can win, or have impact, with good campaign management. Casting a vote for Ms. Sheehan will be seen as a vote against the status quo. This session of Congress, under new management, has opened the eyes of many and they see clearer than ever that their is very little, if any, difference between the predominant political parties. I view it as a glimmer of hope for change. Mercnbeth: A true cynic would have said: "I wonder how much it will cost for them to buy Sheehan"[;)] thompson

TheHeretic -> RE: House votes to pull troops from Iraq by April (7/13/2007 6:19:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx A true cynic would have said: "I wonder how much it will cost for them to buy Sheehan"[;)] thompson And a pessimist would say "cheaper to just have her killed."

farglebargle -> RE: House votes to pull troops from Iraq by April (7/13/2007 6:21:47 PM)
Heh... The PRAGMATIST would start running the wagering....

mnottertail -> RE: House votes to pull troops from Iraq by April (7/13/2007 6:32:20 PM)
and the politician who is neither will come down and say: Well, healthcare----- well, talk radio--- Well I voted for cutting off the funding but they treated me like a dog down there. Well, we voted the troop surge in and I had to hang with it till september because they told us it would work Well, this is just shit well, you voted overwhelmingly for the president and me, and I am staying the course--- They are casting about for an issue, nothing is gonna get done of any major use as long as the lame duck sits. Yogi Berras advice to Martin came this way: When Yogi was fired by Steinbrenner after the 50th time or so (DUH) he cleared out his desk in the center drawer he left two envelopes--- Martin, as is gonna happen found himself afoul of Steinbrenner--- He opened the envelope with the writing, open first---it read: Blame it on me. At some later point he ran afoul of george again: He went to the middle desk drawer and opened the second envelope (open second) It read: prepare two envelopes.

caitlyn -> RE: House votes to pull troops from Iraq by April (7/13/2007 10:00:30 PM)
If I was in President Bush's shoes, I would sign this right away. Only three things can happen: 1. Things will get better ... He can claim to have listened to the American people. What are the Democrats going to do, dispute that? They mostly voted for the fucking war in the first place, and in the end W's name on paper would be the ultimate scoreboard. 2. Things will stay the same ... He can claim the whole anti-war movement was for nothing, and was just political theater. 3. Things will get worse ... he can claim we were two months away from winning the whole show. He can't lose by signing it.

Lordandmaster -> RE: House votes to pull troops from Iraq by April (7/13/2007 10:16:56 PM)
Basically I agree, caitlyn, but that would require him to change his mind--something he hasn't done once since being elected, because he sees it as a sign of weakness. It's delibitating. Once he makes a mistake, he sticks to it forever. I wouldn't be too surprised if he's been told by Rove and his other handlers never to change policy, because if he did, they could never call another Democrat a "flip-flopper."

caitlyn -> RE: House votes to pull troops from Iraq by April (7/13/2007 10:21:56 PM)
I'm more cynical, and believe these people know exactly what they are doing. In my view, the people that claim them stupid, are making the classic mistake of underestimation, and are a major part of why people like this keep getting elected.

farglebargle -> RE: House votes to pull troops from Iraq by April (7/13/2007 10:26:17 PM)
I don't think they're SOPHISTICATED enough to really have any control over what they're doing. If they were, we would have COMPETENT EMPIRE, and not INCOMPETENT EMPIRE. On the whole, I'd have rather had a competent one.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109375