News:

Long overdue maintenance happening. See post in the top forum.

Main Menu

War Vote

Started by Conan71, February 12, 2007, 10:55:58 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5
User actions

Conan71

#30
February 13, 2007, 02:32:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Sorry Im late for the show, I didnt think it was worth responding.  What, with the rapture coming and all.  Actually, maybe the point is moot.  Who cares about the war in Iraq?  The rapture should pretty well end any questions about should we be there or not.

Back in the real world... the Democratically controlled Congress will do the same thing the Republican controlled Congress did. They will primarily do their best to stay in power by doing what they think is popular and paying no attention to either their stated ideology nor what is best for the Nation in the long run.  

Per the war in Iraq, this means they will do nothing of substance.

"Read my lips, no new wars."  (couldn't resist)


"Yes, please take no action, just tell me what I want to hear and I will re-elect you." [xx(]
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan

aoxamaxoa

#31
February 13, 2007, 07:22:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Sorry Im late for the show, I didnt think it was worth responding.  What, with the rapture coming and all.  Actually, maybe the point is moot.  Who cares about the war in Iraq?  The rapture should pretty well end any questions about should we be there or not.

Back in the real world... the Democratically controlled Congress will do the same thing the Republican controlled Congress did. They will primarily do their best to stay in power by doing what they think is popular and paying no attention to either their stated ideology nor what is best for the Nation in the long run.  

Per the war in Iraq, this means they will do nothing of substance.

"Read my lips, no new wars."  (couldn't resist)


You are wrong. The democrats are binding the executive branch to just $100 billion more and conditions attached to insure that this funding is not flittered away to Haliburton et. al. and earmarked specifically for our brave soldiers. they are taking the lead. The surge will be doa by weekend.

You seem to be fodder for foolery.

cannon_fodder

#32
February 14, 2007, 11:12:45 AM
Your witty response, while trying to be mildly insulting, is poorly premised.

First, the funding measure is unlikely to pass.  Cutting funding has never really been done before, and they are unlikely to begin such a purse war now.  They will talk tough, and then back down.  Just like the republicans did on the minimum wage bill.    

If, by some miracle, the 1 seat majority does manage to cut war funding the president can go ahead and send troops anyway... and congress can sit and watch them starve in the field or fund them.  As ****ty as that system may be, that's the way it is.

And again, you want to make sure we punish the evil corporations.  How is it that our troops will be transported, fed, or otherwise supplied if Haliburton is not allowed to do it?  Essentially they are the entire logistics wing of the United States military, I dont think you understand that. Im not defending their alleged fraud, nor do I have any stake in the company, but they provide essential services that no one else is in a position to do.

Likewise, the corporations are the ones that provide the armor, the vehicles, the ammo, and all the other items that you dont want to see cut off... how will they be supplied if we make sure the et. al gets no funding?  Shall we simply appropriate this items or hand the troops cash and let them figure it out themselves?  Earmarking money for "our brave soldiers" is a laughable notion unless you mean the massive, inefficient, federal bureaucracy is somehow going to find a way to get inefficiency out the supply system... which is more than unlikely.

Though, at current levels $100 Billion could be enough for as much as 18 months.  Hopefully something happens by then that enables us to withdrawal and not leave a giant mess behind.  (what a monster our Federal Government has become when $100,000,000,000.00 is referenced with the word "ONLY.")
- - - - - - - - -
I crush grooves.

shadows

#33
February 14, 2007, 12:37:02 PM
Quote:  has anyone seen my left shoe? Did I leave it in this room??
_______________________________________________

I don't see it but if  you place thumbs on your hat below your ears and push it upward you may be able to see the shoe somewhere.   Somewhere we extend into the 21 century the illusion that the big hats are sized to fit our big heads,
The prez just finished telling his subjects how he was going to finish this war he has under control. Unless his budget for the war is approved those troops are going to have to use 2x4's clubs to finish reinstalling Iraqi's exiled government.

I read where representatives of Russia are in Iran to sell them tanks.   Is it  we are blundering into an age old struggle where the Angles would not tread?    


Today we stand in ecstasy and view that we build today'
Tomorrow we will enter into the plea to have it torn away.

iplaw

#34
February 14, 2007, 01:11:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Your witty response, while trying to be mildly insulting, is poorly premised.

First, the funding measure is unlikely to pass.  Cutting funding has never really been done before, and they are unlikely to begin such a purse war now.  They will talk tough, and then back down.  Just like the republicans did on the minimum wage bill.    

If, by some miracle, the 1 seat majority does manage to cut war funding the president can go ahead and send troops anyway... and congress can sit and watch them starve in the field or fund them.  As ****ty as that system may be, that's the way it is.

And again, you want to make sure we punish the evil corporations.  How is it that our troops will be transported, fed, or otherwise supplied if Haliburton is not allowed to do it?  Essentially they are the entire logistics wing of the United States military, I dont think you understand that. Im not defending their alleged fraud, nor do I have any stake in the company, but they provide essential services that no one else is in a position to do.

Likewise, the corporations are the ones that provide the armor, the vehicles, the ammo, and all the other items that you dont want to see cut off... how will they be supplied if we make sure the et. al gets no funding?  Shall we simply appropriate this items or hand the troops cash and let them figure it out themselves?  Earmarking money for "our brave soldiers" is a laughable notion unless you mean the massive, inefficient, federal bureaucracy is somehow going to find a way to get inefficiency out the supply system... which is more than unlikely.

Though, at current levels $100 Billion could be enough for as much as 18 months.  Hopefully something happens by then that enables us to withdrawal and not leave a giant mess behind.  (what a monster our Federal Government has become when $100,000,000,000.00 is referenced with the word "ONLY.")

Poor Cannon_Fodder, you actually think rational discourse is going to get you anywhere with Aox?  I think you should participate in the ignore the Troll game we are currently playing with Dingus McGee.

iplaw

#35
February 14, 2007, 01:15:11 PM
quote:

I don't see it but if  you place thumbs on your hat below your ears and push it upward you may be able to see the shoe somewhere.   Somewhere we extend into the 21 century the illusion that the big hats are sized to fit our big heads,
The prez just finished telling his subjects how he was going to finish this war he has under control.

Really, I remember him saying that the WOT would last far after we were all dead and gone.  Forgive me if I think you're pulling that statement either 1) out of context, or 2) out of your a**.

quote:

Unless his budget for the war is approved those troops are going to have to use 2x4's clubs to finish reinstalling Iraqi's exiled government.

Yes, are you for cutting their funding?

quote:

I read where representatives of Russia are in Iran to sell them tanks.   Is it  we are blundering into an age old struggle where the Angles would not tread?    

Oh NO!!! Not ****ty WWII era tanks from Russia, how will we ever stop them...[xx(]

aoxamaxoa

#36
February 14, 2007, 01:19:27 PM
Ipsqueak is a liar. He sez he has me on ignore.  Join him in common fodder for liars.


Here it comes.....democracy at work! pigs at bay...


"Gallup: Most Americans Want Congress to Go Beyond Non-Binding Vote on War "


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003545019

Conan71

#37
February 14, 2007, 01:21:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw

quote:

I don't see it but if  you place thumbs on your hat below your ears and push it upward you may be able to see the shoe somewhere.   Somewhere we extend into the 21 century the illusion that the big hats are sized to fit our big heads,
The prez just finished telling his subjects how he was going to finish this war he has under control.

Really, I remember him saying that the WOT would last far after we were all dead and gone.  Forgive me if I think you're pulling that statement either 1) out of context, or 2) out of your a**.

quote:

Unless his budget for the war is approved those troops are going to have to use 2x4's clubs to finish reinstalling Iraqi's exiled government.

Yes, are you for cutting their funding?

quote:

I read where representatives of Russia are in Iran to sell them tanks.   Is it  we are blundering into an age old struggle where the Angles would not tread?    

Oh NO!!! Not ****ty WWII era tanks from Russia, how will we ever stop them...[xx(]


Please hand Shadows the shampoo, IP. [}:)]
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan

iplaw

#38
February 14, 2007, 01:38:25 PM
Rinse, Lather, Repeat...

aoxamaxoa

#39
February 14, 2007, 05:51:19 PM
"Leaked letter explains why House Republicans refuse to debate Iraq war"

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/48020/

"Every time a GOPer would step to the plate, they'd start blabbering about God only knows what."

Wow! That happends here. Must be a universal trait.

"The letter urges GOPers "not to debate the Democratic Iraq resolution on their terms, but rather on ours." Republicans should "broaden the debate to the threat posed to Americans, the world, and all 'unbelievers' by radical Islamists." That's important, according to the letter, because "If [Republicans] let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose."

Lots of losers.....

aoxamaxoa

#40
February 15, 2007, 11:59:19 AM
"Republican Doublethink: The Iraq War and a Party Gone Mad"

http://www.progressivedailybeacon.com/more.php?page=opinion&id=1445

"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies... . Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."

"It truly is incredible that Republicans' heads don't simply implode from the sheer force required to keep all the contradictory and hypocritical ideas trapped within their skull. Still, their disengagement from reality becomes stranger yet... . "

cannon_fodder

#41
February 15, 2007, 01:22:27 PM
So what?

Why would you expect GOP, or any other professional organization, to play a game on their opponents terms?  I would expect any one engaged in debate to attempt to change the terms to their favor and engage only when they are sure they can win.  That's debate 101.  But your spamming of headlines and quotes coupled with your ad hominem attacks are doing tons to sway my opinion on the matter.

Per your second post, would you expect any open minded person to take an article seriously that starts with this graphic:

Not too mention posted by 'freelance internet writers' on a website that works in partnership with organizations entitled Topple Bush and the  Liberal Democracy Alliance.  The entire premise of the posted article is that Bush wants to be a dictator and his entire party is detached from reality.  

No wonder no one takes you serious or responds to your posts.  You just spew for crap after skimming it from extremely biased sources and pretend like you made some grand point.  If many more of your posts are an equal waste of my time I too shall cease attempting to discuss anything with you.
- - - - - - - - -
I crush grooves.

aoxamaxoa

#42
February 15, 2007, 01:40:32 PM
^"No wonder no one takes you serious or responds to your posts. "

See ...it works! I expose hypocrites!

iplaw

#43
February 15, 2007, 01:46:19 PM
How much more are you willing to subject yourself to before you put him on ignore?  It never ends...
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5
User actions