Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
I will read that link WHEN Bush stops lieing to the American Public, and when it is proven FOR A FACT that none of his promises were ever broken... Then we shall give them at least SIX months of service, and talk about it...

Otherwise, this is just a moot point.


I will re-post this from another thread. Maybe you will get the hint.

"You are completely in to bash mode. No need to try and have a calm discussion with you. All you have is "Bush lied" and name calling."
quote:
Originally posted by stephanie:
Again SP---you read my mind...

Funny how all of the NEGATIVE links get read IMMEDIATELY and raved about, but the ones that are disagreed with get ignored...
kind of like looking at a car wreck -- you just can't help yourself...hmmmm


Very true Steph. Not going to let it bother me anymore. I will just ignore her posts. Wink
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
I will read that link WHEN Bush stops lieing to the American Public, and when it is proven FOR A FACT that none of his promises were ever broken... Then we shall give them at least SIX months of service, and talk about it...

Otherwise, this is just a moot point.


I will re-post this from another thread. Maybe you will get the hint.

"You are completely in to bash mode. No need to try and have a calm discussion with you. All you have is "Bush lied" and name calling."


Tell me why that anyone FOR Bush has the right to say and feel the way they want to... but anyone who don't agree with his actions are labeled 'bashers' and anyone who don't agree with a select FEW on here are also labeled 'bashers'.

Is it that only YOU are allowed an opinion, ... only Bush Supporters are allowed an opinion? Anything else gets the PERSON who says it bashed...

You guys bash far worse than any of the people on this forum who doesn't agree with Bush... FAR MORE!
KS--I have stated several times to try to keep the argueing to a minimum I will not respond to you, but on this one I will...

You ARE entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine. My opinion is that you say I don't want to hear your opinion when you don't know. I have agreed with you on some things, but when it comes to GWB--we won't see eye to eye. You are adament about what you read immediately and don't -- your statement about reading this link when....proved that. You choose to hear what you want to hear, read what you want to read and believe what you want to believe....you don't try to see it any other way. Why should I listen to you or even consider your side when you brazenly refuse to consider mine?

I will again ignore you from this point forward and I would encourage you to ignore me from now on as well...1st request.

Let's move on, shall we....

No, it hasn't taken long for them to break their promises and change the rules to suit their needs....desperate times call for desperate measures --
quote:
Originally posted by stephanie:
KS--I have stated several times to try to keep the argueing to a minimum I will not respond to you, but on this one I will...

You ARE entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine. My opinion is that you say I don't want to hear your opinion when you don't know. I have agreed with you on some things, but when it comes to GWB--we won't see eye to eye. You are adament about what you read immediately and don't -- your statement about reading this link when....proved that. You choose to hear what you want to hear, read what you want to read and believe what you want to believe....you don't try to see it any other way. Why should I listen to you or even consider your side when you brazenly refuse to consider mine?

I will again ignore you from this point forward and I would encourage you to ignore me from now on as well...1st request.

Let's move on, shall we....

No, it hasn't taken long for them to break their promises and change the rules to suit their needs....desperate times call for desperate measures --


The ignore list works real well Steph.
Don't know why you took me off ignore anyway... you jump down my throat NO MATTER what I say, and you don't agree with anything without putting a note of sarcasm in it... that I can do without.

But I will say, that I am not in the least AFRAID to say what my opinions are here, about any subject, and I will reply to whatever topic I WANT to... just as you do. I seem to see you on those so-called negative links... just as much, if not more than me...

BUT, No matter what, I have guts enough to actually read EVERYTHING EVERYONE puts up here, including you, without having to hide behind an IGNORE feature. I did that once, and decided after talking to a couple of people to take the good with the bad... so I IGNORE NO ONE... I read everyone, whether they agree with what I do or not...

I am glad I do that also, because the ones who aren't in that "hysterical" mode about Bush, I can actually read and communicate with...

OHHHHH, and hmmmmmm.... someone once said they did NOT EVER use the PM feature... EVER they said, they said every thing that they put on this forum was for public view... found out the hard way that the PM feature IS used quite regular, Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by stephanie:
Again SP---you read my mind...

Funny how all of the NEGATIVE links get read IMMEDIATELY and raved about, but the ones that are disagreed with get ignored...
kind of like looking at a car wreck -- you just can't help yourself...hmmmm
Stephanie, Please, I am a Democrat, and the Story that Southern Patriot is NEGATIVE, and, Southern Patriots Comments on it are not only negative, they are over the top negative, misleading, and so far speculation about a false statement.

The story says that Hoyer MIGHT hold open a vote longer thant the Customary 15 minutes. The vote has not been taken. The holding open has not occured, but Souther Patriot says, "Just goes to show that they won't practice what they preach." At the risk of being accused of putting words in the mouth of Southern Patriot, that sentence says, clearly, in other words, witout actually expressing what it implies, Democrats Are going to hold open the Vote beyond 15 minutes.
It has not happened yet, and the article is a "premptive strike" aimed at preventing the Democrats from using the Republican Tactic of holding open votes while they threaten and cajole members to vote the party line.
You see, stephanie, most Democrats, and ALL Liberals, wait for the crime to be committed. We don't punish malefactors on SUSPICION. It is sort of like the war in Iraq, and the international law about invading other countries. YOU HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THEY ACTUALLY PROVOKE THE WAR.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by stephanie:
Again SP---you read my mind...

Funny how all of the NEGATIVE links get read IMMEDIATELY and raved about, but the ones that are disagreed with get ignored...
kind of like looking at a car wreck -- you just can't help yourself...hmmmm
Stephanie, Please, I am a Democrat, and the Story that Southern Patriot is NEGATIVE, and, Southern Patriots Comments on it are not only negative, they are over the top negative, misleading, and so far speculation about a false statement.

The story says that Hoyer MIGHT hold open a vote longer thant the Customary 15 minutes. The vote has not been taken. The holding open has not occured, but Souther Patriot says, "Just goes to show that they won't practice what they preach." At the risk of being accused of putting words in the mouth of Southern Patriot, that sentence says, clearly, in other words, witout actually expressing what it implies, Democrats Are going to hold open the Vote beyond 15 minutes.
It has not happened yet, and the article is a "premptive strike" aimed at preventing the Democrats from using the Republican Tactic of holding open votes while they threaten and cajole members to vote the party line.
You see, stephanie, most Democrats, and ALL Liberals, wait for the crime to be committed. We don't punish malefactors on SUSPICION. It is sort of like the war in Iraq, and the international law about invading other countries. YOU HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THEY ACTUALLY PROVOKE THE WAR.


Wow, Ed!!! Such powerful words!!! So true, so true!!! You are even MORE correct than you realize Smiler Thanks Smiler

And I want to add one more thing... in slightly less than 2 months, there HAS been some strides made for our beloved country, not many, but hey, it has just been 2 months!!!

And the fact that for the last SIX years, everything has gotten so log sided, then 2 months can produce NO miracles at all... people need time to UNDO some of the DEEDS DONE.

Invading Iraq was wrong, yes... and you said it correctly. I said, a long long time ago, on this forum that if people were to actually take the time to read "RULES OF WAR".. (not a book, real rules) they would SEE for themselves where we went wrong almost immediately!!!
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
Ed,

If a French and a British regiment had kicked the Germans out of the Rurh in the thirties, the German general staff would have deposed Adolf (and he knew it). Lack of guts and resolve resulted in 60 million dead!



Some merit to this... but if you are talking about total dead through out the world then, maybe your numbers are correct, if you are talking about total dead for the Jews by Germans, the numbers are just above SIX million.... just thought I would share that one...

Not to step on your toes, but to understand what you mean....
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by stephanie:
Again SP---you read my mind...

Funny how all of the NEGATIVE links get read IMMEDIATELY and raved about, but the ones that are disagreed with get ignored...
kind of like looking at a car wreck -- you just can't help yourself...hmmmm
Stephanie, Please, I am a Democrat, and the Story that Southern Patriot is NEGATIVE, and, Southern Patriots Comments on it are not only negative, they are over the top negative, misleading, and so far speculation about a false statement.

The story says that Hoyer MIGHT hold open a vote longer thant the Customary 15 minutes. The vote has not been taken. The holding open has not occured, but Souther Patriot says, "Just goes to show that they won't practice what they preach." At the risk of being accused of putting words in the mouth of Southern Patriot, that sentence says, clearly, in other words, witout actually expressing what it implies, Democrats Are going to hold open the Vote beyond 15 minutes.
It has not happened yet, and the article is a "premptive strike" aimed at preventing the Democrats from using the Republican Tactic of holding open votes while they threaten and cajole members to vote the party line.
You see, stephanie, most Democrats, and ALL Liberals, wait for the crime to be committed. We don't punish malefactors on SUSPICION. It is sort of like the war in Iraq, and the international law about invading other countries. YOU HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THEY ACTUALLY PROVOKE THE WAR.


Ed, my point in posting the link is to show that the dem's in Congress are already willing to break their promises and they have been in control for what 3-4 months?
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
I will read that link WHEN Bush stops lieing to the American Public, and when it is proven FOR A FACT that none of his promises were ever broken... Then we shall give them at least SIX months of service, and talk about it...

Otherwise, this is just a moot point.


Got to call this one the way I see it...When you have no comments on the original post or even don't like it you insert another topic (such as Bush Bashing) to get peoples attention away from what the original poster wanted to talk about.

Now its time for me to rally around my Conservative camp and call this a bush bashing. With that said I have seen other treads where my fellow conservatives didn't like the topic and revert to liberal name calling. Why not just have one long thread for all topics and just change the subject when we want too.

I have yet heard someone defend the Dems side of this yet.
quote:
Originally posted by Schnauzer:
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
I will read that link WHEN Bush stops lieing to the American Public, and when it is proven FOR A FACT that none of his promises were ever broken... Then we shall give them at least SIX months of service, and talk about it...

Otherwise, this is just a moot point.


Got to call this one the way I see it...When you have no comments on the original post or even don't like it you insert another topic (such as Bush Bashing) to get peoples attention away from what the original poster wanted to talk about.

Now its time for me to rally around my Conservative camp and call this a bush bashing. With that said I have seen other treads where my fellow conservatives didn't like the topic and revert to liberal name calling. Why not just have one long thread for all topics and just change the subject when we want too.

I have yet heard someone defend the Dems side of this yet.


When a discussion boils down to name calling, usually one of two things has happened:
1. One side had no leg to stand on, so they immediately started name calling.
2. One side tried to have an honest debate on the issue but got #1 from the other side.

I think this scenario is what usually plays out when the right side of the isle calls the left side of the isle names. We are usually the folks from point #2. I say usually, but not always. Sometimes the point raised by the other side (ie, VT votes to impeach Bush) are so outrageous that we get agrivated from the start.
The 60 million figure is an estimate of all deaths because WW II. In truth, we still might have had to fight Japan. But, it would have ended sooner and with less casualties/deaths.

My argument with Bush, is the relatively amateurish way the war and occupation were accomplished. The military practically has a checklist of what to do, and we have violated half the items on the list.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
The 60 million figure is an estimate of all deaths because WW II. In truth, we still might have had to fight Japan. But, it would have ended sooner and with less casualties/deaths.

My argument with Bush, is the relatively amateurish way the war and occupation were accomplished. The military practically has a checklist of what to do, and we have violated half the items on the list.


That is what I THOUGHT you meant, but wanted to be sure... thanks!!!

RULES OF WAR, they were made many years ago by our Political Leaders at the time, and been signed off by every one since... Google it, read it, and you will know just HOW many of those rules that Bush and Company has broken. It is mind-boggling... but somehow or another, no one wants to read it.... or at least didn't want to... maybe you will, you seem to have the common sense to read it and understand it.
quote:
Originally posted by Schnauzer:
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
I will read that link WHEN Bush stops lieing to the American Public, and when it is proven FOR A FACT that none of his promises were ever broken... Then we shall give them at least SIX months of service, and talk about it...

Otherwise, this is just a moot point.


Got to call this one the way I see it...When you have no comments on the original post or even don't like it you insert another topic (such as Bush Bashing) to get peoples attention away from what the original poster wanted to talk about.

Now its time for me to rally around my Conservative camp and call this a bush bashing. With that said I have seen other treads where my fellow conservatives didn't like the topic and revert to liberal name calling. Why not just have one long thread for all topics and just change the subject when we want too.

I have yet heard someone defend the Dems side of this yet.


Sorry Schnauzer, my answer stands... it WAS my answer to his debate... And it is a valid answer also... so you are wrong, or at least you took my answer wrong... sorry if you did!
quote:
Originally posted by Schnauzer:
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
I will read that link WHEN Bush stops lieing to the American Public, and when it is proven FOR A FACT that none of his promises were ever broken... Then we shall give them at least SIX months of service, and talk about it...

Otherwise, this is just a moot point.


Got to call this one the way I see it...When you have no comments on the original post or even don't like it you insert another topic (such as Bush Bashing) to get peoples attention away from what the original poster wanted to talk about.

Now its time for me to rally around my Conservative camp and call this a bush bashing. With that said I have seen other treads where my fellow conservatives didn't like the topic and revert to liberal name calling. Why not just have one long thread for all topics and just change the subject when we want too.

I have yet heard someone defend the Dems side of this yet.



You make a great point Schnauzer and a great ally -- didn't take you long to catch on to the rhetoric...we won't always agree, but glad to see we do on this subject! Have a great day...
I try not to bash a president, whether i voted for him or not. I dont care if he is democrat, republican, libertarian, independent or pink with purple dolka dots. He/Maybe she soon, is still my president. They all make bonehead decisions, lie, have a scandel or two, and make enemies. But as long as i vote i have the option to bash if i want.... sometimes they deserve it... but i do try not to. What really gets me is when people dont vote, and bash the prez... In my very humble opinion, if you dont vote, you dont have a right to bash...
quote:
Originally posted by OriginalBama:
I try not to bash a president, whether i voted for him or not. I dont care if he is democrat, republican, libertarian, independent or pink with purple dolka dots. He/Maybe she soon, is still my president. They all make bonehead decisions, lie, have a scandel or two, and make enemies. But as long as i vote i have the option to bash if i want.... sometimes they deserve it... but i do try not to. What really gets me is when people dont vote, and bash the prez... In my very humble opinion, if you dont vote, you dont have a right to bash...


I don't think the occasional jab is what any of us are talking about. I know what I have referenced is the folks who constantly bash, bu add nothing constructive to the debate.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
Ed,

If a French and a British regiment had kicked the Germans out of the Rurh in the thirties, the German general staff would have deposed Adolf (and he knew it). Lack of guts and resolve resulted in 60 million dead!
If Russian Chinese and Iranian forces had Kicked the USA out of Iraq in 2003 Bush would have started a Nuclear war even if he stll has trouble saying Nuke Le Er. The reason that did not happen in 2003 or in the '30's is simple, The only nation prepared to go to war at the time was the aggressor. YES...I AM SAYING THE UNITED STATES IS THE AGGRESSOR IN THE MIDDLE EAST. No, I don't believe that is anti American coming from an American. I would consider it bellicose language coming from a Chinese, French, German, Russian, Spanish, South African, Swedish, Finish, Austrian, Canadian, Brazilian, Venezuelan, Argentinian, Chilean, or Cuban diplomat. BUT THEY ARE NOT OUR FRIENDS, AND THEY ARE NOT USING THAT WORD (VERY OFTEN.)
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
I will read that link WHEN Bush stops lieing to the American Public, and when it is proven FOR A FACT that none of his promises were ever broken... Then we shall give them at least SIX months of service, and talk about it...

Otherwise, this is just a moot point.
Kindred_Spirit, I am going to claim the right to be an equal opportunity basher.
Josephine Hearn is the author of the article. Her is her bio, posted on "The Politico" Josephine Hearn covers the House for Politico. She previously covered lobbying and later House Democrats for The Hill. Prior to that, she worked in television on two PBS Frontline documentaries and at NBC Network News. She holds a bachelor's degree in computer science.[/quote]I will assume the story is not false. It is actually worth noting that Hoyer was asked, in advance of the vote, if he would extend the time beyond 15 minutes to allow house leadership to twist arms to get people to change votes if the funding measure, with its restrictions on Presidential power fall short of a majority.
It is an issue. If the bill falls short the funding of the war will be delayed. Without the restrictions on the war policy the funding is all but guaranteed. If the bill fails it will have to be revised and revoted. If it passes, with the restrictions it may be vetoed. If vetoed the President will be responsible for delaying the funding. If it fails, Congress will be responsible for the delay in funding and FOR FAILING TO LIVE UP TO THEIR OBLIGATION OF OVERSIGHT.

[B]This is my opinion

The bill, with its restrictions, should pass as written. It is already watered down so that hawkish Democrats will support it. The restrictions are supported by about 75% of Americans (maybe more, maybe less) but they are opposed by the remaining Neo Conservatives in Congress.
Pass or fail, the Congressmen who vote against it are probably voting against the will of their constituents, and showing that they represent the people who are profiting from the war.
The will of the American People, as demonstrated in public opinion polls is to END the occupation of Iraq, and to pay for the operations in Iraq.
That is a precise result of the Position YOU take, Oppose the War, Support the Troops.
Seriously, that is the result of the oppositon to the war, support of the troops position. That is the position Suppored by the funding bill in question.
Southern PatriotLied flat out, when he said, "It hasn't taken them long to break their promises."

The Promise to not hold votes open for extended periods is a promise, Hoyers says that if necessary or likely to get the bill passed, He MAY hold the vote open.
The issue of the bill itself is discussed in several articles at this site: http://www.inboxrobot.com/news/spending-bill
The Promise NOT being broken is including a pull out timetable in the 124 billion dollar spending bill. The promise not YET broken is the promise not to extend voting times to allow leadership to get votes changed.
I will withold judgement on the breaking of promises until after the vote is taken, and I will write an e mail to Jon Shadegg asking him to vote in favor of the bill. (he is not likely to do my bidding unless I can get a lot of my neighbors to do the same.)
If you want the provision to pull out of Iraq to remain in the bill, CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE AND YOUR SENATOR. It is a simple matter. Click on this link: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/mailapp/ enter your zip code, plus four, and then click on your Representatives name. BE CAREFUL before you write your message. Shadegg lists issues, and they are each listed twice. One listing for favor, one for oppose.
Since the e mails are read at random, they are sorted by the selection you mark before your the form for your comments opens.
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
Ed, my point in posting the link is to show that the dem's in Congress are already willing to break their promises and they have been in control for what 3-4 months? Besides, the name of the post is a word play of the original headline where I found the link.


Again, another thread hijacked in so many ways...hey, there is a nifty little feature on the right side of your posts that looks like a hazard symbol that you can use to notify AP/AM about threads that get hijacked and should be removed or for comments that use inappropriate languange...it's wondermous!!! Obviously, someone was locked out of one because of that....hmmmmmmm...glad to know it works....sorry I'm dripping with sarcasm with that one...but I'm still happy as a lark in a tree on a sunny day!!! Big Grin keep posting great remarks -- my brain needed the rest today...
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
YES...I AM SAYING THE UNITED STATES IS THE AGGRESSOR IN THE MIDDLE EAST.


EdEKit,

That is just another post that shows exactly how uneducated you really are.

The US did not start the problems in the Middle East and a point of historical reference for you, the Arabs attacked us first over 200 years ago.
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by OriginalBama:
I try not to bash a president, whether i voted for him or not. I dont care if he is democrat, republican, libertarian, independent or pink with purple dolka dots. He/Maybe she soon, is still my president. They all make bonehead decisions, lie, have a scandel or two, and make enemies. But as long as i vote i have the
option to bash if i want.... sometimes they deserve it... but i do try not to. What really gets me is when people dont vote, and bash the prez... In my very humble opinion, if you dont vote, you dont have a right to bash...


I don't think the occasional jab is what any of us are talking about. I know what I have referenced is the folks who constantly bash, bu add nothing constructive to the debate.


SP anyone who does not agree with you or Bush, you accuse of bashing. Also, you haven't shown the ability to respond to constructive debate.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×