RE: House/Senate Funding Bill really screws Bush.

RE: House/Senate Funding Bill really screws Bush. (Full Version)

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

Message

mnottertail -> RE: House/Senate Funding Bill really screws Bush. (4/23/2007 10:04:58 PM)
I am not sure whether this is the most profoundly retarded or just the most retarded post I have ever had the displeasure to skim. 78% of the American people supported going to war? Military recruiting is at it's highest levels in years? I will not go beyond this, because I lose patience easily. 78% some fuckin gallup poll or what? we are not at war. It seems to me that the clueful right should coordinate their policy or we may think the Grand Old Party is floundering. Military recruiting---what was its lowest level for comparison in these years? Your points are well taken, tho, I am sure. Ron and just because I lost my mind, I was thinking about writing a encyclopedic cross-refernce just to point out the very fact of the left-handed and flamingly gay liberal stances of the Rockefellers throughout the ages....but I need a name to hang my hat on, perhaps you could provide one. James Rothchild

farglebargle -> RE: House/Senate Funding Bill really screws Bush. (4/23/2007 10:06:15 PM)
quote: Liberals in general are cowards afraid to confront evil on any level. I don't see that authority delegated by either The Constitution or Amendment to the federal government. Exactly where do you see it delegated. Because if it isn't, my Hamiltonian Friend, then it isn't their fucking job. You want foreign wars of conquest to be Lawful? The go ask Congress for an Act of War, Conscript Troops, the whole ball of wax. Trying to squeak by on the cheap, was doomed to failure.

farglebargle -> RE: House/Senate Funding Bill really screws Bush. (4/23/2007 10:09:29 PM)
Clinton Bashing? Bush letting the terrorist Luis Posada walk out of jail pretty much makes any "Clinton didn't do his job" pointless. I don't know WHY Bush would let a terrorist who blew up an airplane with 80 people on it walk free, but he did.

DanTheTanMan -> RE: House/Senate Funding Bill really screws Bush. (4/23/2007 11:45:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I am not sure whether this is the most profoundly retarded or just the most retarded post I have ever had the displeasure to skim. 78% of the American people supported going to war? Military recruiting is at it's highest levels in years? I will not go beyond this, because I lose patience easily. 78% some fuckin gallup poll or what? we are not at war. It seems to me that the clueful right should coordinate their policy or we may think the Grand Old Party is floundering. Military recruiting---what was its lowest level for comparison in these years? Your points are well taken, tho, I am sure. Ron and just because I lost my mind, I was thinking about writing a encyclopedic cross-refernce just to point out the very fact of the left-handed and flamingly gay liberal stances of the Rockefellers throughout the ages....but I need a name to hang my hat on, perhaps you could provide one. James Rothchild Seriously have your doctor up your meds and try and find something coherent to say some day.

DanTheTanMan -> RE: House/Senate Funding Bill really screws Bush. (4/23/2007 11:55:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Liberals in general are cowards afraid to confront evil on any level. I don't see that authority delegated by either The Constitution or Amendment to the federal government. Exactly where do you see it delegated. Because if it isn't, my Hamiltonian Friend, then it isn't their fucking job. You want foreign wars of conquest to be Lawful? The go ask Congress for an Act of War, Conscript Troops, the whole ball of wax. Trying to squeak by on the cheap, was doomed to failure. Please do find one legitimate law that was broken by ending the cease fire with iraq. You don't even realize it was ending a cease fire do you? We know that liberals avert their eyes as a girl is raped in the alley rather than risk dirtying their gucci shoes and bitch about the police not doing their job. The same police they degrade and treat worse than the criminals. http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security, Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, Bush fucked up playing nice with the Rats because they can never be trusted except to be on the wrong side of history every single time. He fucked up not unleashing the full force of the military on the garbage islam peddlers. But at least he wasn't sitting on the sidelines cheering on the terrorists hoping America would lose like all the democrats pretending to give one ounce of concern to the miltary.

mnottertail -> RE: House/Senate Funding Bill really screws Bush. (4/23/2007 11:58:40 PM)
aren't you at all self-concious or do you think you are a force to be reckoned with, having such pedestrian wisdom to dispense to us the great unwashed? you string a bunch of jingoes together, having no commerce with one another, and further exacerbate your impudence by puerile effrontery. How about you start out by defending your 78% bullshit? Thank you for playing, here is a well used hand towel for you to lick. Look, you made some rather inflammatory statements, copped off a tv, probably, and are impugning my my intelligence with some 2nd grade asswipe? C'mon...if you wanna play with the big boys you have to use multisyllable words and have a point, don't force my into your psychcotic view of the world and expect me to see you as Alexander the Great. Debate the issue, (your statements proffered as reason to believe) but do not pretend they were intelligent or factual (Go Bears is no reason they should win, come back when you can understand that simple premise) Ron oh, yeah; nice use of coherent --- I know you pored over the dictionary a great deal to get the texture just right. Laudable.

mnottertail -> RE: House/Senate Funding Bill really screws Bush. (4/24/2007 12:11:30 AM)
your historical quote---maybe I do need an ajustment in medication---didn't catch it, would you repeat it for such imbiciles as me? just to be one of the boys? Kinda get down and funky with us? LOL................ Ron Melby

DanTheTanMan -> RE: House/Senate Funding Bill really screws Bush. (4/24/2007 12:14:20 AM)
April 2003 A poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News found that 72% of Americans supported the Iraq WarMay 2003 A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and the newspaper USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war.[ Since I know you liberals are to lazy to actually look up facts or anything having to do with reality I even wasted 30 seconds getting the information you claim doesn't exist. Funny how easily facts blow holes in the 1st grade arguements of liberals isn't it?

mnottertail -> RE: House/Senate Funding Bill really screws Bush. (4/24/2007 12:42:54 AM)
better, 72% is not 78% but then I never did algebra beyond highschool---support and justification are words whos definition I can not find akin in meaning (perhaps it is a matter of rhetoric and you see them as equal) additionally, I would find anyone who thinks a washington dc poll by a local newspaper conducted in 2003 as being relevant to some point regarding the recorded history of mankind no more a measure of our sociolocial temperature today than a matteress sale of serta sleepers in queen size compared to the number of scratch off tickets at a pottery barn coupon sale (but again, perhaps you see some connection I am unable to fathom) Now I do find it interesting that included in your insightful and comprehensive analysis that fully 19% thought that usage of weapons might be justified in taking this to war, dare I ask what the other 81% thought ? Atomic bombs? Blowjobs? Embargos? Wasn't the situation in 2003 that there was a staunch majority of you real americans holding down the fort? Or did I fuck that up? Additionally, you don't know my politics and in fact are not worthy to kiss my ass. I am a veteran, and of a conflict, and honorably discharged from the United States Army as an RA (do you know what that means?) My twin brother was a draft dodger and was outright about it. As Clinton was. I was not a child born with a silver spoon in my mouth and at least those two were forthright about it. Bush is a goddamn liar and a draft dodger and a fuckin coward..........daddy kept him safe, and the only combat experience in that whole administration is a drunken asshole that shot his lawyer in the face grouse hunting. Now you race out here and make some inferrence about me. I can goddamn guarentee you that my politics are far to the right of yours. I frankly dont give a fuck that Saddam Hussein killed a 100,000 thousand people, he kept the area safe, and donald fuckin rumsfeld shook his hand. we got pictures, and we know for a fact and knew it then that they didnt have WMD cause goddammit we financed and outfitted their war with Iran in the Reagan years and we know what they expended. Don't mean a fuckin thing to me what is right and wrong----my point, mr John Kenneth Galbraith (read a book) is that if you are gonna do the war, there; you better be willing to slaughter every man woman and child there........you mewley pukes aint got the guts for it, so why you wanna kill kids if you aint up to it, and now you are qouting some goddamn statistics and singing jingles? You ain't half enough on the right side pinko. Ron Mely

farglebargle -> RE: House/Senate Funding Bill really screws Bush. (4/24/2007 5:21:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DanTheTanMan quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Liberals in general are cowards afraid to confront evil on any level. I don't see that authority delegated by either The Constitution or Amendment to the federal government. Exactly where do you see it delegated. Because if it isn't, my Hamiltonian Friend, then it isn't their fucking job. You want foreign wars of conquest to be Lawful? The go ask Congress for an Act of War, Conscript Troops, the whole ball of wax. Trying to squeak by on the cheap, was doomed to failure. Please do find one legitimate law that was broken by ending the cease fire with iraq. 18 USC 371. If you need help figuring it out, go real Elizabeth de la Vega's book. If you use the SEARCH feature here, you might find an earlier link to it from another post. QED. quote: and to restore international peace and security in the area, Well, Bush didn't do that, either. And he ain't going to. Why? Because despite his hippie beliefs, the Sunni, Shiia, Kurds, and Turks just aint going to sit down, do bong hits, sing Kumbaya, and Promise to All Just Get Along!

Mercnbeth -> RE: House/Senate Funding Bill really screws Bush. (4/24/2007 6:55:14 AM)
quote: Bush ALREADY went to Congress for money for the War. Congress ALREADY gave him the money he asked for. Bush WASTED THAT MONEY, and is now looking for a handout to cover up for his continuing Fiscal Irresponsibility. How often you give your kids money, when they're throwing it away? All perfectly accurate fargle. Which is why, after President Bush vetoes this bill and sites as a cause not only the Senates calender assigned surrender date, but the $300 Million in wasted pork spending; the "screws" will be put to the party in charge who had the power not to repeat the prior errors you identify. The more cowardly and they are to cleanly cut off spending the more support they'll lose from the fundamentalist pacifists that put them in power in the first place. Meanwhile their spending provisions will warn the fiscal responsible what they can expect if the entitlement party comes to power. As I said after the election, if I believed in conspiracies the republicans couldn't created a better scenario to win in 2008 than to lose as they did in 2006. How many, "Democrats Surrender" or "Reid says We Lost" banners will blossom as we get closer to 2008? People who write to their representatives, read and post to political messages boards, and generate independent thought without concern to political party identity will not be affected. Representing a huge majority are people who don't, and only get their "news" from TV's talking heads. "Middle American" doesn't take to being identified as "losers" or "surrendering". This easily could have been turned around and used to lead, instead it will be used for politics. Well, if a naive, politically ignorant, poor communicator like me can draw 'buzz-word' poster language from this bill how will someone like Rove exploit this during an election? Instead of how we got there, the focus will be on surrendering to get out. The example of Vietnam will be turned around to point to what happened there to the people after we left and the images of helicopters being dumped into the ocean, and the embassy being evacuated will be shown. I could be wrong, but there is a huge block of voters who don't want to see those same images in Iraq. They wont vote for a party who solicited surrender and losing; even if both are correct. You were accurate when you said this is politics as "normal". I just couldn't believe that's what everyone, including myself, voted for when they screamed for a change last November.

farglebargle -> RE: House/Senate Funding Bill really screws Bush. (4/24/2007 8:37:41 AM)
Why doesn't Bush just ADMIT HE CAN'T WIN, and that's why he's so opposed to being held accountable.

selfbnd411 -> RE: House/Senate Funding Bill really screws Bush. (4/24/2007 8:53:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth The example of Vietnam will be turned around to point to what happened there to the people after we left and the images of helicopters being dumped into the ocean, and the embassy being evacuated will be shown. I could be wrong, but there is a huge block of voters who don't want to see those same images in Iraq. They wont vote for a party who solicited surrender and losing; even if both are correct. You're wrong.

Sekhemet -> RE: House/Senate Funding Bill really screws Bush. (4/24/2007 9:08:23 AM)
wait I thought Bill liked GIRLS - and ceeeeeeeeeegars! (and he did it with house funding no less!!! DAYUM he's good!) XxoxX

Mercnbeth -> RE: House/Senate Funding Bill really screws Bush. (4/24/2007 9:47:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Why doesn't Bush just ADMIT HE CAN'T WIN, and that's why he's so opposed to being held accountable. Well now you changed the focus of the OP. There is no assumption that you agree with the points I raised, however I'll take it that you at least considered my perspective valid. Addressing your new question, he doesn't have to. He could declare 'victory' on these points: No terrorist attacks on US soil since 2001 Saddam Hussein removed Iraqi self determination As we get closer to the 2008 election I expect these will be the talking points. Don't misunderstand that I think these were good reasons for getting into Iraq or staying there. They could have been accomplished without spilling one drop of US soldier blood. The voter who will impact the 2008 elections will be faced with the choice of one party saying "We Won!", while the other is saying "We Surrender!". The results will be the same. Who do you think will get the votes? Don't respond in context of your knowledge or your ability to reason, but try to put yourself in the position of the large block of people who respond to 'buzz-word' politics. When it's reasonably argued that the majority is slim and "politics as usual" don't allow for a pragmatic use of the majority's power; the concept is too advanced. This majority will become an albatross around the neck of the Democratic party unless they use it to be distinct. Your point regarding politics as usual is accurate, but combined with surrendering it gives a loser's image.

Slavehandsome -> RE: House/Senate Funding Bill really screws Bush. (4/24/2007 11:15:07 AM)
All those free-thinking liberals got us into this war to begin with! If everybody had just given Bush all the money we have at the outset of this War On Terrorism, those 19 Iraqi pilots wouldn't have been able to do what they did. If it hadn't been for the liberals, Rumsfeld would not have said on Sept. 10th that the Pentagon somehow lost $2.3 Trillion. I bet if we took Al Gore to Guantanamo Bay for a few years, we could get the truth out of him. Word has it that Al Gore and all of those other liberals have 1 testicle, and even worse, they're kinky!

Mercnbeth -> RE: House/Senate Funding Bill really screws Bush. (4/24/2007 11:16:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: selfbnd411 quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth The example of Vietnam will be turned around to point to what happened there to the people after we left and the images of helicopters being dumped into the ocean, and the embassy being evacuated will be shown. I could be wrong, but there is a huge block of voters who don't want to see those same images in Iraq. They wont vote for a party who solicited surrender and losing; even if both are correct. You're wrong. With all your supporting evidence and argument it is impossible to disagree. I stand corrected.

ShadowMster -> RE: House/Senate Funding Bill really screws Bush. (4/24/2007 11:25:50 AM)
I find it laughable. COnservative bigots who resort to name calling when someone disagrees with their spin on the details. So, more men have died bring peace to Iraq (including Iraq's) then died during Saddam's rule. More Americans have died in the war then in the 8 years before the war.. (Duh.. in the 8 years before, there was no war). At what point do we tell ourselves that we should get out of the civil war we caused when we took the stablisation force (Saddam) out of the picture? If you kill the law and order (even if corrupt like Saddam was), and you don't replace it, then you have what we have in Iraq. Unrest.

Sinergy -> RE: House/Senate Funding Bill really screws Bush. (4/24/2007 12:37:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DanTheTanMan Try a few things like, facts, and history. 78% of the American people supported going to war. Care to enlighten the board as to the statistical samplings, standard deviation, and error bracket for the survey(s) you are citing? Did the people conducting the survey wander around the halls of Congress to ask Republican staffers if they supported the war, and then applied the percentage of supporters in that sample group to the general population? quote: Military recruiting is at its highest level in years. Hrm, from what I read, military recruiting for all branches of the military have not made their recruiting quotas for NEW RECRUITS for 5 years now. These two statements cannot both be true. Additionally, the only reason overall recruiting statistics actually show up as being at a high level is with stop loss, people are automatically re-upped which boosts the recruiting statistics. In other words, they tell somebody who has been in Iraq for years that he cannot go home, and increase the number of military recruits for the year by one and call it a recruiting success. Just to pick one of your examples out of a hat, you state that Nixon "won" the Vietnam War. What exactly does that sentence mean? He dropped more bombs on them than had ever been dropped in all other wars combined in the history of mankind? He airlifted all of our troops and fled the country as the NVA closed in on Saigon? The United States lost 55,000+ soldiers and ended up with nothing to show for it at the end of the war? How are you defining the term "won the Vietnam war?" Rather than stringing a bunch of jingoistic nonsense together to prove that night is day and the Pre-Cambrian extinction is the fault of liberals, I would be interested in reading your source materials as well as statements that show you understand your sources and how statistical information provided to you is derived. I am rather dubious you will be able to, but there ya go. Sinergy edited to fix my quoting

NorthernGent -> RE: House/Senate Funding Bill really screws Bush. (4/24/2007 12:50:04 PM)
Shadow, Nail on the head. If violence is going to be used as a substitute for diplomacy, then they better have a very good reason. Being best of pals with Saddam Hussein when he was using biological weapons on the Kurds and Iranians, and then 15 years later claiming they're worried about Iraq's biological weapons (the ones they actually supplied), is simply insulting peoples' intelligence.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125