Cheney trots out the 'you're with us or you're a traitor' rhetoric

quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
I don't see the word "traitor" in there anywhere. I do see where he correctly states that they are "undermining the troops" though.


Gosh, wanting to bring the troops home and preserve their lives from a war that can't be won. Yes, that is definitely undermining them. -note sarcasm. Now, let's join the real world and tell Bush and Cheney and the rest of the warmongers that "if you are not with what the majority of the US wants, you are the traitor". Yes, nice ring to it...
quote:
Originally posted by DHS-86:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
I don't see the word "traitor" in there anywhere. I do see where he correctly states that they are "undermining the troops" though.


Gosh, wanting to bring the troops home and preserve their lives from a war that can't be won. Yes, that is definitely undermining them. -note sarcasm. Now, let's join the real world and tell Bush and Cheney and the rest of the warmongers that "if you are not with what the majority of the US wants, you are the traitor". Yes, nice ring to it...


Amen
Would you please explain to me what the "majority" of the US wants? When you do, come with facts. Polls won't get it. I will never buy the "ask 1000 households" so that we know what 300M people think. All I know is that GWB is the CinC (he was elected twice don't ya know) and will be until replaced in 2008. He has a paper in hand (voted on by your left leaning buddies) to do what needs to be done with the GWOT, and he's doing it. Congress either needs to give him the funding he requested or grow a pair and defund it all. Anything other than that is micromanaging BS.
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
Would you please explain to me what the "majority" of the US wants? When you do, come with facts. Polls won't get it. I will never buy the "ask 1000 households" so that we know what 300M people think. All I know is that GWB is the CinC (he was elected twice don't ya know) and will be until replaced in 2008. He has a paper in hand (voted on by your left leaning buddies) to do what needs to be done with the GWOT, and he's doing it. Congress either needs to give him the funding he requested or grow a pair and defund it all. Anything other than that is micromanaging BS.



Don't you mean Bush stole the election in 2000 and may have in 2004!!
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
Would you please explain to me what the "majority" of the US wants? When you do, come with facts. Polls won't get it. I will never buy the "ask 1000 households" so that we know what 300M people think. All I know is that GWB is the CinC (he was elected twice don't ya know) and will be until replaced in 2008. He has a paper in hand (voted on by your left leaning buddies) to do what needs to be done with the GWOT, and he's doing it. Congress either needs to give him the funding he requested or grow a pair and defund it all. Anything other than that is micromanaging BS.


The majority of the US wants out of Iraq. It is not benefitting our country in the least. Staying and fighting simply for the sake of fighting is insane. A wise man once said "Doing the same things over and over, and expecting different results is the definition of insanity".

Bush was appointed once and elected once. Popular vote showed he lost the first election, but I don't care to get into all that at this time.

And, as I have tried to tell you, just because a person is a Democrat it does not necessarily mean that person is a liberal. 2 major parties- democrat and Republican- 2 schools of political thought - liberal and conservative. There are both in each party.
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
Would you please explain to me what the "majority" of the US wants? When you do, come with facts. Polls won't get it. I will never buy the "ask 1000 households" so that we know what 300M people think. All I know is that GWB is the CinC (he was elected twice don't ya know) and will be until replaced in 2008. He has a paper in hand (voted on by your left leaning buddies) to do what needs to be done with the GWOT, and he's doing it. Congress either needs to give him the funding he requested or grow a pair and defund it all. Anything other than that is micromanaging BS.



I'm with you on this one -- show me actual votes -- as much as I hate to say this -- Ed's post on the city in Vermont comes to mind -- forget the polls. Polls are as bad as the "crooked election" you want to bring up -- they can be as misinterpreted, misread and manipulated if you want them to be.
quote:
Originally posted by DHS-86:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
Would you please explain to me what the "majority" of the US wants? When you do, come with facts. Polls won't get it. I will never buy the "ask 1000 households" so that we know what 300M people think. All I know is that GWB is the CinC (he was elected twice don't ya know) and will be until replaced in 2008. He has a paper in hand (voted on by your left leaning buddies) to do what needs to be done with the GWOT, and he's doing it. Congress either needs to give him the funding he requested or grow a pair and defund it all. Anything other than that is micromanaging BS.


The majority of the US wants out of Iraq. It is not benefitting our country in the least. Staying and fighting simply for the sake of fighting is insane. A wise man once said "Doing the same things over and over, and expecting different results is the definition of insanity".

Bush was appointed once and elected once. Popular vote showed he lost the first election, but I don't care to get into all that at this time.

And, as I have tried to tell you, just because a person is a Democrat it does not necessarily mean that person is a liberal. 2 major parties- democrat and Republican- 2 schools of political thought - liberal and conservative. There are both in each party.


1. You brought no facts for the "majority" so I see you can't back up that statement.
2. Bush won the electoral college in 2000. The last time I checked, that how we elect a president.
3. I never used the word "liberal" once... you did.
quote:
Originally posted by DHS-86:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
Would you please explain to me what the "majority" of the US wants? When you do, come with facts. Polls won't get it. I will never buy the "ask 1000 households" so that we know what 300M people think. All I know is that GWB is the CinC (he was elected twice don't ya know) and will be until replaced in 2008. He has a paper in hand (voted on by your left leaning buddies) to do what needs to be done with the GWOT, and he's doing it. Congress either needs to give him the funding he requested or grow a pair and defund it all. Anything other than that is micromanaging BS.


The majority of the US wants out of Iraq. It is not benefitting our country in the least. Staying and fighting simply for the sake of fighting is insane. A wise man once said "Doing the same things over and over, and expecting different results is the definition of insanity".

Bush was appointed once and elected once. Popular vote showed he lost the first election, but I don't care to get into all that at this time.

And, as I have tried to tell you, just because a person is a Democrat it does not necessarily mean that person is a liberal. 2 major parties- democrat and Republican- 2 schools of political thought - liberal and conservative. There are both in each party.



you have liberal's in the Republican party as well as others!
quote:
Originally posted by pba:
quote:
Originally posted by DHS-86:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
Would you please explain to me what the "majority" of the US wants? When you do, come with facts. Polls won't get it. I will never buy the "ask 1000 households" so that we know what 300M people think. All I know is that GWB is the CinC (he was elected twice don't ya know) and will be until replaced in 2008. He has a paper in hand (voted on by your left leaning buddies) to do what needs to be done with the GWOT, and he's doing it. Congress either needs to give him the funding he requested or grow a pair and defund it all. Anything other than that is micromanaging BS.


The majority of the US wants out of Iraq. It is not benefitting our country in the least. Staying and fighting simply for the sake of fighting is insane. A wise man once said "Doing the same things over and over, and expecting different results is the definition of insanity".

Bush was appointed once and elected once. Popular vote showed he lost the first election, but I don't care to get into all that at this time.

And, as I have tried to tell you, just because a person is a Democrat it does not necessarily mean that person is a liberal. 2 major parties- democrat and Republican- 2 schools of political thought - liberal and conservative. There are both in each party.



you have liberal's in the Republican party as well as others!


Once again, I never said "liberal", you did.
quote:
Originally posted by DHS-86:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
Would you please explain to me what the "majority" of the US wants? When you do, come with facts. Polls won't get it. I will never buy the "ask 1000 households" so that we know what 300M people think. All I know is that GWB is the CinC (he was elected twice don't ya know) and will be until replaced in 2008. He has a paper in hand (voted on by your left leaning buddies) to do what needs to be done with the GWOT, and he's doing it. Congress either needs to give him the funding he requested or grow a pair and defund it all. Anything other than that is micromanaging BS.


The majority of the US wants out of Iraq. It is not benefitting our country in the least. Staying and fighting simply for the sake of fighting is insane. A wise man once said "Doing the same things over and over, and expecting different results is the definition of insanity".

Bush was appointed once and elected once. Popular vote showed he lost the first election, but I don't care to get into all that at this time.

And, as I have tried to tell you, just because a person is a Democrat it does not necessarily mean that person is a liberal. 2 major parties- democrat and Republican- 2 schools of political thought - liberal and conservative. There are both in each party.



I don't care what poliitcal affiliation you have -- We do not vote our President in with the majority of the popular vote -- we use the electoral college. You can spout that all you want to that he didn't get the popular vote--he won the college and that is it. He won them both -- regardless of the small margin -- every vote counts as it should in the system we use. We have used it for centuries and until the likes of Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry elections where we were choosing between the lesser of 2 evils -- it has worked and it still does today. The EC makes sure that MY vote in Alabama counts.

If you want to get on the bandwagon of "popular vote"--look at how crazy the popular vote is -- American Idol--Sanjaya who can't sing worth a ____ is still in the competition! America is apparently full of screaming teenagers or is tone-deaf!

Big Grin Hello! If they are willing to vote him to stay every week -- doing something that doesn't work is insane was your comment -- then why don't they vote Sanjaya off ---

I know that doesn't make sense, but it shows how skewed polls can be and how an actual vote will show you what reality is....
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
Would you please explain to me what the "majority" of the US wants? When you do, come with facts. Polls won't get it. I will never buy the "ask 1000 households" so that we know what 300M people think. All I know is that GWB is the CinC (he was elected twice don't ya know) and will be until replaced in 2008. He has a paper in hand (voted on by your left leaning buddies) to do what needs to be done with the GWOT, and he's doing it. Congress either needs to give him the funding he requested or grow a pair and defund it all. Anything other than that is micromanaging BS.
just so you know what you're talking about AND IN TOTAL DEFIANCE OF YOUR OBJECTION TO POLLS, I present this link.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Believe them or not SP it's up to you. BUT THEY ARE THE BEST OPTION, since there is no other UNBIASED option available.

BTW. DON'T YOU DARE TO EVER TELL ANYONE THAT FOX NEWS IS THE MOST POPULAR NEWS OUTLET ON TV AGAIN. That statement is based entirely on polling results.
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by DHS-86:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
Would you please explain to me what the "majority" of the US wants? When you do, come with facts. Polls won't get it. I will never buy the "ask 1000 households" so that we know what 300M people think. All I know is that GWB is the CinC (he was elected twice don't ya know) and will be until replaced in 2008. He has a paper in hand (voted on by your left leaning buddies) to do what needs to be done with the GWOT, and he's doing it. Congress either needs to give him the funding he requested or grow a pair and defund it all. Anything other than that is micromanaging BS.


The majority of the US wants out of Iraq. It is not benefitting our country in the least. Staying and fighting simply for the sake of fighting is insane. A wise man once said "Doing the same things over and over, and expecting different results is the definition of insanity".

Bush was appointed once and elected once. Popular vote showed he lost the first election, but I don't care to get into all that at this time.

And, as I have tried to tell you, just because a person is a Democrat it does not necessarily mean that person is a liberal. 2 major parties- democrat and Republican- 2 schools of political thought - liberal and conservative. There are both in each party.


1. You brought no facts for the "majority" so I see you can't back up that statement.
2. Bush won the electoral college in 2000. The last time I checked, that how we elect a president.
3. I never used the word "liberal" once... you did.


You used "left leaning buddies", that means liberal.

OK, I cited no facts or website or newspaper, only common sense. Why would we, as a country, want to stay in Iraq? It makes no sense. We stayed in one war we could not win about 40 years ago. Remember how that turned out? This is turning into the same kind of situation. Open your eyes to what is going on instead of just trying to justify everything Bush is doing.
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
I don't see the word "traitor" in there anywhere. I do see where he correctly states that they are "undermining the troops" though.
Right, pba is over the top as usual. BUT, YOU CALL IT TREASON, AND HAVE CALLED IT TREASON ON THIS FORUM.
quote:
Originally posted by stephanie:
quote:
Originally posted by DHS-86:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
Would you please explain to me what the "majority" of the US wants? When you do, come with facts. Polls won't get it. I will never buy the "ask 1000 households" so that we know what 300M people think. All I know is that GWB is the CinC (he was elected twice don't ya know) and will be until replaced in 2008. He has a paper in hand (voted on by your left leaning buddies) to do what needs to be done with the GWOT, and he's doing it. Congress either needs to give him the funding he requested or grow a pair and defund it all. Anything other than that is micromanaging BS.


The majority of the US wants out of Iraq. It is not benefitting our country in the least. Staying and fighting simply for the sake of fighting is insane. A wise man once said "Doing the same things over and over, and expecting different results is the definition of insanity".

Bush was appointed once and elected once. Popular vote showed he lost the first election, but I don't care to get into all that at this time.

And, as I have tried to tell you, just because a person is a Democrat it does not necessarily mean that person is a liberal. 2 major parties- democrat and Republican- 2 schools of political thought - liberal and conservative. There are both in each party.



I don't care what poliitcal affiliation you have -- We do not vote our President in with the majority of the popular vote -- we use the electoral college. You can spout that all you want to that he didn't get the popular vote--he won the college and that is it. He won them both -- regardless of the small margin -- every vote counts as it should in the system we use. We have used it for centuries and until the likes of Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry elections where we were choosing between the lesser of 2 evils -- it has worked and it still does today. The EC makes sure that MY vote in Alabama counts.

If you want to get on the bandwagon of "popular vote"--look at how crazy the popular vote is -- American Idol--Sanjaya who can't sing worth a ____ is still in the competition! America is apparently full of screaming teenagers or is tone-deaf!

Big Grin Hello! If they are willing to vote him to stay every week -- doing something that doesn't work is insane was your comment -- then why don't they vote Sanjaya off ---

I know that doesn't make sense, but it shows how skewed polls can be and how an actual vote will show you what reality is....


I stated that I was not going into this, but the electoral college voting system is flawed. Always has been, always will be. I'm sure you do like it, otherwise W would have never gotten into office.
quote:
Originally posted by DHS-86:
quote:
Originally posted by stephanie:
quote:
Originally posted by DHS-86:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
Would you please explain to me what the "majority" of the US wants? When you do, come with facts. Polls won't get it. I will never buy the "ask 1000 households" so that we know what 300M people think. All I know is that GWB is the CinC (he was elected twice don't ya know) and will be until replaced in 2008. He has a paper in hand (voted on by your left leaning buddies) to do what needs to be done with the GWOT, and he's doing it. Congress either needs to give him the funding he requested or grow a pair and defund it all. Anything other than that is micromanaging BS.


The majority of the US wants out of Iraq. It is not benefitting our country in the least. Staying and fighting simply for the sake of fighting is insane. A wise man once said "Doing the same things over and over, and expecting different results is the definition of insanity".

Bush was appointed once and elected once. Popular vote showed he lost the first election, but I don't care to get into all that at this time.

And, as I have tried to tell you, just because a person is a Democrat it does not necessarily mean that person is a liberal. 2 major parties- democrat and Republican- 2 schools of political thought - liberal and conservative. There are both in each party.



I don't care what poliitcal affiliation you have -- We do not vote our President in with the majority of the popular vote -- we use the electoral college. You can spout that all you want to that he didn't get the popular vote--he won the college and that is it. He won them both -- regardless of the small margin -- every vote counts as it should in the system we use. We have used it for centuries and until the likes of Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry elections where we were choosing between the lesser of 2 evils -- it has worked and it still does today. The EC makes sure that MY vote in Alabama counts.

If you want to get on the bandwagon of "popular vote"--look at how crazy the popular vote is -- American Idol--Sanjaya who can't sing worth a ____ is still in the competition! America is apparently full of screaming teenagers or is tone-deaf!

Big Grin Hello! If they are willing to vote him to stay every week -- doing something that doesn't work is insane was your comment -- then why don't they vote Sanjaya off ---

I know that doesn't make sense, but it shows how skewed polls can be and how an actual vote will show you what reality is....


I stated that I was not going into this, but the electoral college voting system is flawed. Always has been, always will be. I'm sure you do like it, otherwise W would have never gotten into office.


I agree with you it has its flaws, but like it or not -- that is the way it is. The first time no Bush wouldn't have against Gore -- but the 2nd time against Kerry, yes he would have won.
quote:
Originally posted by DHS-86:
Would have been Gore's second term. I doubt if he would have stepped aside for Kerry to run.


Excuse me -- it would have been a rematch against Gore -- You are correct Gore probably wouldn't have stepped aside. I seriously doubt Gore would have done a better job in the first term so I would still believe that Bush would have won in 2004 -- And had he been running against Gore as the incumbent, I doubt the margin would have been as close the 2nd time around...I was going based on the numbers of the 2 elections...but this is just MHO
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
I don't see the word "traitor" in there anywhere. I do see where he correctly states that they are "undermining the troops" though.
Right, pba is over the top as usual. BUT, YOU CALL IT TREASON, AND HAVE CALLED IT TREASON ON THIS FORUM.



Thank you very much Ed!
It has been noted, correctly, that bush took the presidency through a constitutional technicality - 2 electoral votes. He did, however, lose the popular vote. In our nations history bush is the only president to win re-election after losing the popular vote. His re-election was by only 3% of the vote. Both times he did not win a clear mandate from the electorate. He started off from a weakened position and has squandered his opportunity to have been a successful president at every turn. He is what he is - lousy. I know its hard to take for those who are only interested in being right. Thats natural, we all like to be right. Sometimes even the smartest people are, well, just wrong. Its time to stop placing bush and his welfare and legacy before the welfare and legacy of this great nation. Sometimes its not about party - its about country.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
Would you please explain to me what the "majority" of the US wants? When you do, come with facts. Polls won't get it. I will never buy the "ask 1000 households" so that we know what 300M people think. All I know is that GWB is the CinC (he was elected twice don't ya know) and will be until replaced in 2008. He has a paper in hand (voted on by your left leaning buddies) to do what needs to be done with the GWOT, and he's doing it. Congress either needs to give him the funding he requested or grow a pair and defund it all. Anything other than that is micromanaging BS.
just so you know what you're talking about AND IN TOTAL DEFIANCE OF YOUR OBJECTION TO POLLS, I present this link.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Believe them or not SP it's up to you. BUT THEY ARE THE BEST OPTION, since there is no other UNBIASED option available.

BTW. DON'T YOU DARE TO EVER TELL ANYONE THAT FOX NEWS IS THE MOST POPULAR NEWS OUTLET ON TV AGAIN. That statement is based entirely on polling results.


If you can find where I said that Ed, let me know.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
I don't see the word "traitor" in there anywhere. I do see where he correctly states that they are "undermining the troops" though.
Right, pba is over the top as usual. BUT, YOU CALL IT TREASON, AND HAVE CALLED IT TREASON ON THIS FORUM.


Once again Ed, please show me where I have ever used the word Treason about Congress. I don't remember having used the word.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
It has been noted, correctly, that bush took the presidency through a constitutional technicality - 2 electoral votes. He did, however, lose the popular vote. In our nations history bush is the only president to win re-election after losing the popular vote. His re-election was by only 3% of the vote. Both times he did not win a clear mandate from the electorate. He started off from a weakened position and has squandered his opportunity to have been a successful president at every turn. He is what he is - lousy. I know its hard to take for those who are only interested in being right. Thats natural, we all like to be right. Sometimes even the smartest people are, well, just wrong. Its time to stop placing bush and his welfare and legacy before the welfare and legacy of this great nation. Sometimes its not about party - its about country.


Pretty much every president is thought to be "lousy" while he was in office. Only when reviewed in the future will we truly know GWB's legacy. I personally don't give a **** about his legacy and have never taken it in to account during any of my many discussions on this forum.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
It has been noted, correctly, that bush took the presidency through a constitutional technicality - 2 electoral votes. He did, however, lose the popular vote. In our nations history bush is the only president to win re-election after losing the popular vote. His re-election was by only 3% of the vote. Both times he did not win a clear mandate from the electorate. He started off from a weakened position and has squandered his opportunity to have been a successful president at every turn. He is what he is - lousy. I know its hard to take for those who are only interested in being right. Thats natural, we all like to be right. Sometimes even the smartest people are, well, just wrong. Its time to stop placing bush and his welfare and legacy before the welfare and legacy of this great nation. Sometimes its not about party - its about country.


Very well stated. Thank you for the enlightened comment. Very nice.
quote:
Originally posted by DHS-86:
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
It has been noted, correctly, that bush took the presidency through a constitutional technicality - 2 electoral votes. He did, however, lose the popular vote. In our nations history bush is the only president to win re-election after losing the popular vote. His re-election was by only 3% of the vote. Both times he did not win a clear mandate from the electorate. He started off from a weakened position and has squandered his opportunity to have been a successful president at every turn. He is what he is - lousy. I know its hard to take for those who are only interested in being right. Thats natural, we all like to be right. Sometimes even the smartest people are, well, just wrong. Its time to stop placing bush and his welfare and legacy before the welfare and legacy of this great nation. Sometimes its not about party - its about country.


Very well stated. Thank you for the enlightened comment. Very nice.


===========================================

YEs I agree.
It is a shame that the last statement is not the reality. Actually, it should ALWAYS be about country, not party. It always being about party is what's gotten us in this mess now.
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
I don't see the word "traitor" in there anywhere. I do see where he correctly states that they are "undermining the troops" though.
Right, pba is over the top as usual. BUT, YOU CALL IT TREASON, AND HAVE CALLED IT TREASON ON THIS FORUM.


Once again Ed, please show me where I have ever used the word Treason about Congress. I don't remember having used the word.
I don't pick nits. I pick Nic. I have no doubt that you have never called any Congressman a traitor, and you may have never said the words treason and traitor. BUT, Undermining a war effort is traitorous, therefor, asserting that someone is undermining a war effort is saying traitor.
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
I was taught to "call a spade a spade". If Congress is trying to micromanage Iraq and play polotics with war funding they are undermining the war effort and our Soldiers in the field.
The way you put it, it would seem that you are accusing Congress of undermining the best interests of the United States. If the Congress is undermining the best interest of the United States, they are undermining the United States. THAT IS TREASON. Now, you say you have never used the word Treason in this discussion, and I will not argue that point. You probably have not.
quote:
Webster's defines Treason as: 1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY. The definition of undermine, in metaphor: 3 : to subvert or weaken insidiously or secretly <trying to undermine his political rivals>
4 : to weaken or ruin by degrees. Insidious: 1 a : awaiting a chance to entrap : TREACHEROUS and finally the definition of Treacherous: 1 : violation of allegiance or of faith and confidence : TREASON
2 : an act of perfidy or treason


PLEASE, SAY AGAIN THAT YOU NEVER SAID TREASON.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
I was taught to "call a spade a spade". If Congress is trying to micromanage Iraq and play polotics with war funding they are undermining the war effort and our Soldiers in the field.
The way you put it, it would seem that you are accusing Congress of undermining the best interests of the United States. If the Congress is undermining the best interest of the United States, they are undermining the United States. THAT IS TREASON. Now, you say you have never used the word Treason in this discussion, and I will not argue that point. You probably have not.
quote:
Webster's defines Treason as: 1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY. The definition of undermine, in metaphor: 3 : to subvert or weaken insidiously or secretly <trying to undermine his political rivals>
4 : to weaken or ruin by degrees. Insidious: 1 a : awaiting a chance to entrap : TREACHEROUS and finally the definition of Treacherous: 1 : violation of allegiance or of faith and confidence : TREASON
2 : an act of perfidy or treason


PLEASE, SAY AGAIN THAT YOU NEVER SAID TREASON.


Based off your definition above, I would have to say that yes Congress is being treasonous and treacherous in their actions.
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
I was taught to "call a spade a spade". If Congress is trying to micromanage Iraq and play polotics with war funding they are undermining the war effort and our Soldiers in the field.
The way you put it, it would seem that you are accusing Congress of undermining the best interests of the United States. If the Congress is undermining the best interest of the United States, they are undermining the United States. THAT IS TREASON. Now, you say you have never used the word Treason in this discussion, and I will not argue that point. You probably have not.
quote:
Webster's defines Treason as: 1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY. The definition of undermine, in metaphor: 3 : to subvert or weaken insidiously or secretly <trying to undermine his political rivals>
4 : to weaken or ruin by degrees. Insidious: 1 a : awaiting a chance to entrap : TREACHEROUS and finally the definition of Treacherous: 1 : violation of allegiance or of faith and confidence : TREASON
2 : an act of perfidy or treason


PLEASE, SAY AGAIN THAT YOU NEVER SAID TREASON.


Based off your definition above, I would have to say that yes Congress is being treasonous and treacherous in their actions.
Wasn't that easy.
quote:
Originally posted by jcrowder:
Cheney has totally exhausted his credibility with most of the American people. That neocon warmongering weasel will live in infamy as the most nefarious Vice President in American history!


Really, sold out his own daughter in support of a constitutional amendment which he and dumbya knew would not pass - just to get re-elected. Pandering low-life slime.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
I was taught to "call a spade a spade". If Congress is trying to micromanage Iraq and play polotics with war funding they are undermining the war effort and our Soldiers in the field.
The way you put it, it would seem that you are accusing Congress of undermining the best interests of the United States. If the Congress is undermining the best interest of the United States, they are undermining the United States. THAT IS TREASON. Now, you say you have never used the word Treason in this discussion, and I will not argue that point. You probably have not.
quote:
Webster's defines Treason as: 1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY. The definition of undermine, in metaphor: 3 : to subvert or weaken insidiously or secretly <trying to undermine his political rivals>
4 : to weaken or ruin by degrees. Insidious: 1 a : awaiting a chance to entrap : TREACHEROUS and finally the definition of Treacherous: 1 : violation of allegiance or of faith and confidence : TREASON
2 : an act of perfidy or treason


PLEASE, SAY AGAIN THAT YOU NEVER SAID TREASON.


Based off your definition above, I would have to say that yes Congress is being treasonous and treacherous in their actions.
Wasn't that easy.


Yes. They have made it pretty easy to reach that conclusion.
quote:
Originally posted by DHS-86:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
I don't see the word "traitor" in there anywhere. I do see where he correctly states that they are "undermining the troops" though.


Gosh, wanting to bring the troops home and preserve their lives from a war that can't be won. Yes, that is definitely undermining them. -note sarcasm. Now, let's join the real world and tell Bush and Cheney and the rest of the warmongers that "if you are not with what the majority of the US wants, you are the traitor". Yes, nice ring to it...



AMEN TO THIS!!!! Oh yeah, you said it right!!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
I was taught to "call a spade a spade". If Congress is trying to micromanage Iraq and play polotics with war funding they are undermining the war effort and our Soldiers in the field.
The way you put it, it would seem that you are accusing Congress of undermining the best interests of the United States. If the Congress is undermining the best interest of the United States, they are undermining the United States. THAT IS TREASON. Now, you say you have never used the word Treason in this discussion, and I will not argue that point. You probably have not.
quote:
Webster's defines Treason as: 1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY. The definition of undermine, in metaphor: 3 : to subvert or weaken insidiously or secretly <trying to undermine his political rivals>
4 : to weaken or ruin by degrees. Insidious: 1 a : awaiting a chance to entrap : TREACHEROUS and finally the definition of Treacherous: 1 : violation of allegiance or of faith and confidence : TREASON
2 : an act of perfidy or treason


PLEASE, SAY AGAIN THAT YOU NEVER SAID TREASON.


Based off your definition above, I would have to say that yes Congress is being treasonous and treacherous in their actions.
Wasn't that easy.


Yes. They have made it pretty easy to reach that conclusion.


OHHHHHHHH MYYYYYYY GOSHH!!!! I cannot believe what I am reading...

I will say it one more time... someone who is SO MISINFORMED as SP is, HAS to be VERY VERY young, or just sits there with their nose in Fox news all the time... I am guessing VERY VERY young though!!!

I just CANNOT believe my eyes though on that comment!!!!! The comment ALONE is HORRIBLE!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
I was taught to "call a spade a spade". If Congress is trying to micromanage Iraq and play polotics with war funding they are undermining the war effort and our Soldiers in the field.
The way you put it, it would seem that you are accusing Congress of undermining the best interests of the United States. If the Congress is undermining the best interest of the United States, they are undermining the United States. THAT IS TREASON. Now, you say you have never used the word Treason in this discussion, and I will not argue that point. You probably have not.
quote:
Webster's defines Treason as: 1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY. The definition of undermine, in metaphor: 3 : to subvert or weaken insidiously or secretly <trying to undermine his political rivals>
4 : to weaken or ruin by degrees. Insidious: 1 a : awaiting a chance to entrap : TREACHEROUS and finally the definition of Treacherous: 1 : violation of allegiance or of faith and confidence : TREASON
2 : an act of perfidy or treason


PLEASE, SAY AGAIN THAT YOU NEVER SAID TREASON.


Based off your definition above, I would have to say that yes Congress is being treasonous and treacherous in their actions.
Wasn't that easy.


Yes. They have made it pretty easy to reach that conclusion.


OHHHHHHHH MYYYYYYY GOSHH!!!! I cannot believe what I am reading...

I will say it one more time... someone who is SO MISINFORMED as SP is, HAS to be VERY VERY young, or just sits there with their nose in Fox news all the time... I am guessing VERY VERY young though!!!

I just CANNOT believe my eyes though on that comment!!!!! The comment ALONE is HORRIBLE!!!


Read the chain KS. Based strictly off Ed's definiton, the conclusion I made is a valid one, IMHO. You have made the "VERY young" comment before and it doesn't hold water. I can assure that 18 years of military service and supporting myself in this world since I was 16 has given me a very clear view of how the world works. I have also explained to you in the past that I actually do the work to get outside of the MSM box (to which you are so terribly chained to) and find out the way things really are. I don't rely on ANY one source for ANY of my views. Research is the only way to know what is really going on out there.
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
I was taught to "call a spade a spade". If Congress is trying to micromanage Iraq and play polotics with war funding they are undermining the war effort and our Soldiers in the field.
The way you put it, it would seem that you are accusing Congress of undermining the best interests of the United States. If the Congress is undermining the best interest of the United States, they are undermining the United States. THAT IS TREASON. Now, you say you have never used the word Treason in this discussion, and I will not argue that point. You probably have not.
quote:
Webster's defines Treason as: 1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY. The definition of undermine, in metaphor: 3 : to subvert or weaken insidiously or secretly <trying to undermine his political rivals>
4 : to weaken or ruin by degrees. Insidious: 1 a : awaiting a chance to entrap : TREACHEROUS and finally the definition of Treacherous: 1 : violation of allegiance or of faith and confidence : TREASON
2 : an act of perfidy or treason


PLEASE, SAY AGAIN THAT YOU NEVER SAID TREASON.


Based off your definition above, I would have to say that yes Congress is being treasonous and treacherous in their actions.
Wasn't that easy.


Yes. They have made it pretty easy to reach that conclusion.


OHHHHHHHH MYYYYYYY GOSHH!!!! I cannot believe what I am reading...

I will say it one more time... someone who is SO MISINFORMED as SP is, HAS to be VERY VERY young, or just sits there with their nose in Fox news all the time... I am guessing VERY VERY young though!!!

I just CANNOT believe my eyes though on that comment!!!!! The comment ALONE is HORRIBLE!!!


Read the chain KS. Based strictly off Ed's definiton, the conclusion I made is a valid one, IMHO. You have made the "VERY young" comment before and it doesn't hold water. I can assure that 18 years of military service and supporting myself in this world since I was 16 has given me a very clear view of how the world works. I have also explained to you in the past that I actually do the work to get outside of the MSM box (to which you are so terribly chained to) and find out the way things really are. I don't rely on ANY one source for ANY of my views. Research is the only way to know what is really going on out there.
Southern Patriot, I started a business when I was 11 years old. I was too young to have a job, so I created one. By the time I was 18, I owned two cars, both in my Father's name, I was too young to own property. I owned a typesetter, and two offset printing presses, I produced Text material for two Schools, Talliessen West, and the Arizona School of Business Administration. I had completed a year of College, and I was facing the draft. I joined the Army to retain some control over my own destiny, and to fulfill my civic duty to defend this nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I did my six years, completed another year of college while in the Reserves, Married, started a family and a career.
Apparently while I was building a reputation and life in civilian society I was also paying your wages, feeding and housing you for 18 years. Every working stiff in the country is in your debt for our security, but we paid for it. I would not ever support cutting you off from a fair share of what I was able to earn while you watched my back. I think you should repay that loyalty to you for all those years with at least some realization that we worked together to build this nation. You did your part, and I did mine. Now, instead of being able to reap the rewards of a lifetime of service both of us are faced with an ongoing fight to protect ourselves from the greed and avarice of a powerful and concerted drive to impoverish, not just us, but our children and our children's children for the benefit of an elite few.
Ed. My first comment is petty but begrudge me the point. While I would agree that you helped pay my wages while I have been in the service, I have also paid for MY OWN WAGES because I get taxed just like you do. Sorry, but that is a BIG pet peeve of mine.
I agree with a good portion of what you have said here up to the point that both of us are "faced with an ongoing fight to protect ourselves from the greed and avarice of a powerful and concerted drive to impoverish, not just us, but our children and our children's children for the benefit of an elite few". You don't specify who you think is trying to impoverish us. If you believe that it's conservatives in gov't I would have to disagree. I truly believe that true conservatism believes in sefl determination. It believes that no man needs the gov't to hold his hand or provide his living for him. In this great country we live in, there is no reason why a man (or woman) can't stand up on their own 2 feet and make a good life for themselves. The founding fathers made a point of this in the statement "that all powers not specified for the federal gov't belong to the states" (not an exact quote, in a hurry to finish the post). The Federal gov't should have NO major involvement in our lives other than the basic services (ie. defense, roads etc..). The fed's have usurped entirely too much power from the states and should return such forth with. This nation was founded as a constitutional republic and should return to such. Give the power back to the states and locallities and many of the problems we experience with the Fed's would disapear. If you take away some of the monsters size, you wouldn't have to feed the monster so much. I know this kinda rambles, I hope it gives you a better idea on my true feelings concerning gov't
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
Ed. My first comment is petty but begrudge me the point. While I would agree that you helped pay my wages while I have been in the service, I have also paid for MY OWN WAGES because I get taxed just like you do. Sorry, but that is a BIG pet peeve of mine.
I agree with a good portion of what you have said here up to the point that both of us are "faced with an ongoing fight to protect ourselves from the greed and avarice of a powerful and concerted drive to impoverish, not just us, but our children and our children's children for the benefit of an elite few". You don't specify who you think is trying to impoverish us. If you believe that it's conservatives in gov't I would have to disagree. I truly believe that true conservatism believes in sefl determination. It believes that no man needs the gov't to hold his hand or provide his living for him. In this great country we live in, there is no reason why a man (or woman) can't stand up on their own 2 feet and make a good life for themselves. The founding fathers made a point of this in the statement "that all powers not specified for the federal gov't belong to the states" (not an exact quote, in a hurry to finish the post). The Federal gov't should have NO major involvement in our lives other than the basic services (ie. defense, roads etc..). The fed's have usurped entirely too much power from the states and should return such forth with. This nation was founded as a constitutional republic and should return to such. Give the power back to the states and locallities and many of the problems we experience with the Fed's would disapear. If you take away some of the monsters size, you wouldn't have to feed the monster so much. I know this kinda rambles, I hope it gives you a better idea on my true feelings concerning gov't


I am so confused after this last post of yours. The current administration has grown the government to the largest in history, it has taken away more of your Constitutional rights than at any time in American history, it has run up the largest debt in history, and has handed the nations wealth over to the rich elite, all the things you say you are opposed to, but you still support the Republicans and Bush? Your views are not consistant with your politics it seems to me.

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×