Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I was watching CNN today and there was Nancy Pelosi talking about how the house needs to work WITH the white house. What is wrong with her? What they need to do is cut all funding and bring the troops home. Also she talked about instead of cutting the funding, just managing it more and instead of pulling out the troops she wants to change the nature of their mission to other areas.

This is what is wrong with the Democrats and I am a left wing person myself in ideology. But do they not realize that cutting the funding for the war is a win/win for them? Not only would they look strong by over-ruling the republicans. But also most of America wants the war over and this is what they were voted in to do.

All I can say is this is just another big let down from the spineless Democrats. And this makes me very upset because I would like nothing better then to see the republicans out of power.

Hahaha, Starhawk.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I was watching CNN today and there was Nancy Pelosi talking about how the house needs to work WITH the white house. What is wrong with her? What they need to do is cut all funding and bring the troops home. Also she talked about instead of cutting the funding, just managing it more and instead of pulling out the troops she wants to change the nature of their mission to other areas.

This is what is wrong with the Democrats and I am a left wing person myself in ideology. But do they not realize that cutting the funding for the war is a win/win for them? Not only would they look strong by over-ruling the republicans. But also most of America wants the war over and this is what they were voted in to do.

All I can say is this is just another big let down from the spineless Democrats. And this makes me very upset because I would like nothing better then to see the republicans out of power.

fail

Originally posted by Starhawk
I was watching CNN today and there was Nancy Pelosi talking about how the house needs to work WITH the white house. What is wrong with her? What they need to do is cut all funding and bring the troops home. Also she talked about instead of cutting the funding, just managing it more and instead of pulling out the troops she wants to change the nature of their mission to other areas.

This is what is wrong with the Democrats and I am a left wing person myself in ideology. But do they not realize that cutting the funding for the war is a win/win for them? Not only would they look strong by over-ruling the republicans. But also most of America wants the war over and this is what they were voted in to do.

All I can say is this is just another big let down from the spineless Democrats. And this makes me very upset because I would like nothing better then to see the republicans out of power.

Reality.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Reality.

fantasy

Actually it's real it was on CNN.

Originally posted by Schecter
fantasy

Do you know what I'm talking about?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you know what I'm talking about?

arrogance

Originally posted by Schecter
arrogance

Explain?

I'm a hard left-winger, and I also believe that the Congress should work with the White House. It'd be better if the White House were more agreeable, but we don't want gridlock.

Why can't Hillary be the speaker of the house, she would've cut funding right away. Please God, make this woman president.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Why can't Hillary be the speaker of the house, she would've cut funding right away. Please God, make this woman president.

No one is going to cut the funding.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I'm a hard left-winger, and I also believe that the Congress should work with the White House. It'd be better if the White House were more agreeable, but we don't want gridlock.

Sometimes it's necessary though to get rid of a problem (Bush).

Originally posted by Starhawk
Why can't Hillary be the speaker of the house, she would've cut funding right away. Please God, make this woman president. You do realize that there is such a thing as the minority, right? They have a voice in the government.

Authoritarianism (which is what you seem to support) may be more efficient, but it's definitely not better

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No one is going to cut the funding.

And that is the problem. People need to realize the war is over and both America and Canada need to pull out of the middle east.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Aboth America and Canada need to pull out of the middle east.

anyone?

Originally posted by Strangelove
You do realize that there is such a thing as the minority, right? They have a voice in the government.

Authoritarianism (which is what you seem to support) may be more efficient, but it's definitely not better

In this case it would be. If a small portion supported capital punishment, should that be followed also?

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-le-tuesday17.6apr17,1,4165858.story?coll=la-news-a_section&ctrack=1&cset=true

This is an article from the LA Times on the disappointment with the Democrats.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hahaha, Starhawk.

Yes, I love you.

Originally posted by Starhawk
In this case it would be. If a small portion supported capital punishment, should that be followed also? You're a moron

Originally posted by Schecter
anyone?

He's no fun... not even worth it.

Originally posted by Robtard
He's no fun... not even worth it.

yes it is....it'll be funny. funnier than a pile of dead babies. i promise.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Sometimes it's necessary though to get rid of a problem (Bush).

so you would cut the military budget to get rid of someone who will only go when his term expires...while in the mean time forcing the military to shed jobs meaning that troops who have either served their time in iraq or are currently there, people who have seen their friends killed and seen other injured or been injured themselves, will be put out of work...

just to make a point against Bush...which wont actually have any effect at getting rid of him...which would have been the initial reason?

am i getting that right?

Originally posted by Strangelove
You're a moron

No the idea of North American politics is that through voting the will of the majority is carried out. They voted the democrats into the house to stop the war, they should follow the will of the people on that.

Originally posted by jaden101
so you would cut the military budget to get rid of someone who will only go when his term expires...while in the mean time forcing the military to shed jobs meaning that troops who have either served their time in iraq or are currently there, people who have seen their friends killed and seen other injured or been injured themselves, will be put out of work...

just to make a point against Bush...which wont actually have any effect at getting rid of him...which would have been the initial reason?

am i getting that right?

No, the vast majority of Americans want the war over. And I am sure they would rather have people out of work then killed in a foreign land over a pointless war.

Originally posted by Starhawk
No the idea of North American politics is that through voting the will of the majority is carried out. They voted the democrats into the house to stop the war, they should follow the will of the people on that. Originally posted by Starhawk
No, the vast majority of Americans want the war over. And I am sure they would rather have people out of work then killed in a foreign land over a pointless war. yawn Come back when you know things

Originally posted by Starhawk
No the idea of North American politics is that through voting the will of the majority is carried out. They voted the democrats into the house to stop the war, they should follow the will of the people on that.

They do what they want to do, and cutting the funds and bring the troops home is not what they want to do. What they want is power.

Come back when you can counter points with more then sarcasm.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I was watching CNN today and there was Nancy Pelosi talking about how the house needs to work WITH the white house. What is wrong with her? What they need to do is cut all funding and bring the troops home. Also she talked about instead of cutting the funding, just managing it more and instead of pulling out the troops she wants to change the nature of their mission to other areas.

This is what is wrong with the Democrats and I am a left wing person myself in ideology. But do they not realize that cutting the funding for the war is a win/win for them? Not only would they look strong by over-ruling the republicans. But also most of America wants the war over and this is what they were voted in to do.

All I can say is this is just another big let down from the spineless Democrats.

True.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Come back when you can counter points with more then sarcasm.

come back when you learn to use "then" and "than" appropriately as well as which countries are involved in this war as well as the difference between an act of congress/house and elections.

Originally posted by KidRock
True.

lol its funny because he only read the last line

Originally posted by Starhawk
Come back when you can counter points with more then sarcasm. You're not making any good points. You're a Canadian law student. I'm an American political science student. I think I'm more of an authority on the subject than you.

Originally posted by Strangelove
yawn Come back when you know things

You'll never seen him again.

You'd also think that an educated person would know the basic workings of the Government just South of his.

I know which countries are involved. And the point is the democrats were voted in to deal with many issues not the least of which is the Iraq war.

Originally posted by Strangelove
You're not making any good points. You're a Canadian law student. I'm an American political science student. I think I'm more of an authority on the subject than you.

Then bring up some counter points. I follow American politics fairly closely.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I know which countries are involved.

obviously you dont.

Originally posted by Starhawk
No, the vast majority of Americans want the war over. And I am sure they would rather have people out of work then killed in a foreign land over a pointless war.

cutting the funding isn't going to make the war over though is it?

you cut the money from something...its the people that get fired (no pun intended) first

infact you put those who are left at ever greater risk by cutting funding

Originally posted by Schecter
obviously you dont.

America is in Iraq, Canada is in Afghanistan. Neither belongs where they are and all their presence there is doing is racking up a body count.

Actually, there should be forces in Afghanistan, because that's where the real terrorists are.

Originally posted by jaden101
cutting the funding isn't going to make the war over though is it?

you cut the money from something...its the people that get fired (no pun intended) first

infact you put those who are left at ever greater risk by cutting funding

Bush and the Republicans are the ones putting them at risk. And if we lost a few in the pull out it's better then continuing to rack up a larger body count by staying there.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Actually, there should be forces in Afghanistan, because that's where the real terrorists are.

But they have done nothing to Canada, therefore it's not our place to be there.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Why can't Hillary be the speaker of the house, she would've cut funding right away. Please God, make this woman president. False

Originally posted by Captain Maynard
False

Actually I think she would, Hillary is a remarkably strong person. I don't think she would back down the way Nancy has.

Originally posted by Starhawk
America is in Iraq, Canada is in Afghanistan. Neither belongs where they are and all their presence there is doing is racking up a body count.

America and Canada...is that it?

there's actually currently 41 countries with troops in Iraq or have participated at some stage over the last 4 years

more than the 1st Gulf war as it happens

Originally posted by jaden101
America and Canada...is that it?

there's actually currently 41 countries with troops in Iraq or have participated at some stage over the last 4 years

more than the 1st Gulf war as it happens

And most of those countries are only providing support to the Americans.

And if America pulled out the others would follow suit.

Originally posted by Starhawk
But they have done nothing to Canada, therefore it's not our place to be there. So just because Terrorists haven't attacked Canada, you should just ignore all the problems in the world?

What a sense of international community and cooperation you have

Originally posted by Strangelove
So just because Terrorists haven't attacked Canada, you should just ignore all the problems in the world?

What a sense of international community and cooperation you have

I actually don't believe in interfering in other countries.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I actually don't believe in interfering in other countries.

Then stop interfering in America's policies, petition your own government to "pull out".

Originally posted by Robtard
Then stop interfering in America's policies, petition your own government to "pull out".

We are only there because of your country and Stephen Harper's close loving relationship with Bush.

Originally posted by Starhawk
And most of those countries are only providing support to the Americans.

And if America pulled out the others would follow suit.

you are very naive if you think that cutting funding would result in a mass pullout of troops...

world politics doesn't work that way

Originally posted by jaden101
you are very naive if you think that cutting funding would result in a mass pullout of troops...

world politics doesn't work that way

If Bush didn't have any money to continue funding the war, he would have no choice.

Originally posted by Starhawk
If Bush didn't have any money to continue funding the war, he would have no choice.

Your dreaming.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Actually it's real it was on CNN. I'm going to post this in stupidest things I've heard.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your dreaming.

Okay then explain to me how he could continue the war with all funding cut?

Originally posted by Starhawk
Okay then explain to me how he could continue the war with all funding cut?

No one is going to cut the money. That would be political suicide.

Originally posted by Starhawk
We are only there because of your country and Stephen Harper's close loving relationship with Bush.

Blah, blah blah... so you do believe in interferring... Jackass.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No one is going to cut the money. That would be political suicide.

No it wouldn't, according to the latest polls most Americans want the way to end. The approval ratings for both the War and Bush's approval are hitting rock bottom.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Okay then explain to me how he could continue the war with all funding cut?

It wouldn't, and that isn't what they are trying to say. No one would cut the funding.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
It wouldn't, and that isn't what they are trying to say. No one would cut the funding.

If they were smart they would, it would send a strong message to the American people, the majority of which right now greatly oppose the war and wish it to end.

Originally posted by Starhawk
No it wouldn't, according to the latest polls most Americans want the way to end. The approval ratings for both the War and Bush's approval are hitting rock bottom.

If the Democrats cut the funding, then the Republicans can blame them for anything that would go wrong, and a lot always goes wrong.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If the Democrats cut the funding, then the Republicans can blame them for anything that would go wrong, and a lot always goes wrong.

And the Democrats can respond by blaming the Republicans for getting America into the war in the first place and messing it up every step of the way.

Originally posted by Schecter
come back when you learn to use "then" and "than" appropriately as well as which countries are involved in this war as well as the difference between an act of congress/house and elections.



lol its funny because he only read the last line

Silence.

A strong message? Yes, it would send a strong message of how stubborn and petty our politicians are. Most people don't support the war, but support the troops; by cutting funds, you are endangering the troops.

Originally posted by Starhawk
And the Democrats can respond by blaming the Republicans for getting America into the war in the first place and messing it up every step of the way.

If does not work that way. The people have a short memory.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
A strong message? Yes, it would send a strong message of how stubborn and petty our politicians are. Most people don't support the war, but support the troops; by cutting funds, you are endangering the troops.

Thats why you bring the troops home and out of danger and the problem is solved.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If does not work that way. The people have a short memory.

Then it's up to the Democrats to actually grow a spine and stand up and remind the country about it.

Originally posted by Starhawk
People need to realize the war is over and both America and Canada need to pull out of the middle east.

Huh?

Originally posted by Starhawk
Thats why you bring the troops home and out of danger and the problem is solved.

Just like we did in Vietnam?

Originally posted by Starhawk
Then it's up to the Democrats to actually grow a spine and stand up and remind the country about it.

Not going to happen

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Just like we did in Vietnam?

Minus the mass bombings. And at least it put an end to that meaningless war.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Thats why you bring the troops home and out of danger and the problem is solved.

And that still doesn't address the problem of the image they are portraying to the people; a bickering government that can't find common ground and work together. Undermining the president, no matter how bad you think he is, is not a way to build confidence in our government.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
And that still doesn't address the problem of the image they are portraying to the people; a bickering government that can't find common ground and work together. Undermining the president, no matter how bad you think he is, is not a way to build confidence in our government.

Have you considered that your government the way it is doesn't deserve the people's confidence?

Originally posted by Starhawk
Minus the mass bombings. And at least it put an end to that meaningless war.

You need to learn so history. How many people died after we left Vietnam?

This is far more complicated than most of you are making it out to be. 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq to begin with.

Terrorism and Iraq were two and, to this day, remain two different subjects that are not linked. America is not fighting terror.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You need to learn so history. How many people died after we left Vietnam?

If we pull out all the troops how can they be harmed?

Originally posted by Starhawk
If we pull out all the troops how can they be harmed?

Not soldiers, PEOPLE. Average civilians.

Originally posted by Starhawk
If we pull out all the troops how can they be harmed?

I'm not talking about troops. I'm talking about civilians. Look it up.

There could be unbelievable numbers of people die from Iran over running the country.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Not soldiers, PEOPLE. Average civilians.

If your talking about Iraqi civilians I think they would celebrate America's exit. And there will be violence regardless but less in the long term if America pulls out.

Originally posted by Starhawk
If your talking about Iraqi civilians I think they would celebrate America's exit. And there will be violence regardless but less in the long term if America pulls out.

Celebrate? I highly doubt that. If we withdraw, the few areas that are in semi-working order will become warzones, along with the rest of the country.

Originally posted by Starhawk
And there will be violence regardless but less in the long term if America pulls out.

You base this on what? I guess you mean to say if they pull out now but they will certainly pull out at some point. So that's kind of a moot point.

Now if they pull out now, all the soldier's deaths that will occur could be prevented. And you don't know for sure what would happen to the society itself if we pull out.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Now if they pull out now, all the soldier's deaths that will occur could be prevented. And you don't know for sure what would happen to the society itself if we pull out.

You don't seem to care about the Iraqi people.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Now if they pull out now, all the soldier's deaths that will occur could be prevented. And you don't know for sure what would happen to the society itself if we pull out.

And from simple logical deduction, we can see it becoming like China circa 1920s-30s.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You don't seem to care about the Iraqi people.

It's there country. I don't believe we have the right to police the entire world. And we have no definite proof it would harm them.

Originally posted by Starhawk
It's there country. I don't believe we have the right to police the entire world. And we have no definite proof it would harm them.

We started the war, we have to finish it! Stop being so selfish. I wish we had not started the war, but we did. Now it is the US's responsibility to protect the Iraqi people.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Now if they pull out now, all the soldier's deaths that will occur could be prevented. And you don't know for sure what would happen to the society itself if we pull out.

You are being naive if you think those bigwigs really give a **** about the soldiers who die in the war. Think they have any sons, daughters in the war?

So are you disagreeing that at some point America has to pull out? You keep saying "if" so I'm not following you all the way.

I'm not saying I know what will happen to that society. The biggest things that will happen have already taken place. Now they will just be a constant. BUT IT IS A FACT THAT AMERICA WILL PULL OUT AT SOME POINT. No "if."

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We started the war, we have to finish it! Stop being so selfish. I wish we had not started the war, but we did. Now it is the US's responsibility to protect the Iraqi people.

The Iraqi peole don't want you there, how many of your troops have to die before you guys realize that?

Originally posted by chithappens
You are being naive if you think those bigwigs really give a **** about the soldiers who die in the war. Think they have any sons, daughters in the war?

So are you disagreeing that at some point America has to pull out? You keep saying "if" so I'm not following you all the way.

I'm not saying I know what will happen to that society. The biggest things that will happen have already taken place. Now they will just be a constant. BUT IT IS A FACT THAT AMERICA WILL PULL OUT AT SOME POINT. No "if."

It needs to happen sooner rather then later.

Originally posted by Starhawk
The Iraqi peole don't want you there, how many of your troops have to die before you guys realize that?

"We", the citizens, don't control the Army. The government does not represent the views of all Americans or the actions they would have taken as a voted majority.

Don't do that.

Originally posted by Starhawk
It needs to happen sooner rather then later.

Way to skip everything except the last two sentences

The point is the Iraqi people does not want an American presence there. And they will keep killing troops to send a message. We need to pull the troops out and let them solve the situation themselves.

Originally posted by Starhawk
The Iraqi peole don't want you there, how many of your troops have to die before you guys realize that?

That does not free us of the responsibly.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That does not free us of the responsibly.

If someone does not want your help it most certainly does.

Originally posted by Starhawk
The point is the Iraqi people does not want an American presence there. And they will keep killing troops to send a message. We need to pull the troops out and let them solve the situation themselves.

Sigh. To explain this in full, we need lots and lots of left out context. The citizens can not do it alone at this point.

Originally posted by chithappens
Sigh. To explain this in full, we need lots and lots of left out context. The citizens can not do it alone at this point.

Yes but they don't want your help. So whether or not they can, just let them handle it to whatever degree they can.

Originally posted by Starhawk
If someone does not want your help it most certainly does.

No, because it would lead to WWIII.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, because it would lead to WW III.

No it might lead to a war between Iraq and Iran but not to WW III, your bring melodramatic on that one.

Originally posted by Starhawk
No it might lead to a war between Iraq and Iran but not to WW III, your bring melodramatic on that one.

You obviously know very little about international politics.

No, if no one else's gets involved and let's them deal with each other then it cannot balloon. The middle east is a situation best left to it's own. The only reason America is in there is oil interests.

Originally posted by Starhawk
No, if no one else's gets involved and let's them deal with each other then it cannot balloon. The middle east is a situation best left to it's own. The only reason America is in there is oil interests. Alright! You got one! Now try to piece the rest together.

I'm sorry but Oil interests do not justify what America has done to that country.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I'm sorry but Oil interests do not justify what America has done to that country.


We can't change the past. We are stuck with what we have done. No one in their right mind would stop the funding, that is why it has not happened.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I'm sorry but Oil interests do not justify what America has done to that country.

Again, I didn't choose to do that. Let's keep it specific. I'm not gaining a damn thing from the war

That's why I said America, meaning your country as a whole.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We can't change the past. We are stuck with what we have done. No one in their right mind would stop the funding, that is why it has not happened.

I would, the American public want out of this war now and thats why they voted in the democrats.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I would, the American public want out of this war now and thats why they voted in the democrats.

Then why has it not happened?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then why has it not happened?

Because the democrats are scared of the republicans.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then why has it not happened?

Originally posted by Starhawk
Because the democrats are scared of the republicans.

OMFG, that's the best you can come up with? Your opinion is now invalid

Originally posted by Starhawk
Because the democrats are scared of the republicans.

Isn't that what I said?

Originally posted by Starhawk
I would, the American public want out of this war now and thats why they voted in the democrats.

its still a democracy with the left holding an advantage. its true there is a shift but still we didnt directly vote for a particular bill. thats why we have the house and congress to pass the bill, and the president to veto the bill and accuse everyone of stalling.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Isn't that what I said?

Exactly, I am just saying I wish they wouldn't be and stand up to the republicans.

We f*cked up there big time, because whether we leave Iraq or not, Iraq is screwed...no leader, just chaos as of now.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
We f*cked up there big time, because whether we leave Iraq or not, Iraq is screwed...no leader, just chaos as of now.

Ya, it can only get worse.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Exactly, I am just saying I wish they wouldn't be and stand up to the republicans.

What is this idea of democrats being scared of republicans based on?

Originally posted by chithappens
What is this idea of democrats being scared of republicans based on?

The fact that they are scared to call the republicans on their failures in any meaningful way or challenge their polices or take steps to halt their actions.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Because the democrats are scared of the republicans. lol you're a moron beyond all belief

*wipes tear away* Oh lord that was a doozy. You really made me laugh there.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya, it can only get worse.
So what's the point in staying?

You seem to want us to stay, but you admit that it would do no good.

Originally posted by Strangelove
lol you're a moron beyond all belief

*wipes tear away* Oh lord that was a doozy. You really made me laugh there.
You'd have more credibility if you explained why he's wrong.

Anyone can just call people stupid. That's how children argue.

Originally posted by Strangelove
lol you're a moron beyond all belief

*wipes tear away* Oh lord that was a doozy. You really made me laugh there.

Actually I am not alone in that belief quite a great deal of American's feel the same way. Watch some of the political shows in the US and you will see.

Cutting the funding is the right thing to do.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Actually I am not alone in that belief quite a great deal of American's feel the same way. Watch some of the political shows in the US and you will see. Most of the political shows are either hosted by right-wingers like Limbaugh, Hannity, or O'Reilly, or by people who rarely show a preference. Why? Because Democrats aren't mudslingers like Republicans are.

Talk show hosts do not represent the views of the public.Originally posted by King Kandy
You'd have more credibility if you explained why he's wrong.

Anyone can just call people stupid. That's how children argue. He has no credibility whatsoever. I study American politics as my major in school and he's trying to lecture all of us on American politics, where he has strong opinions and little else. He has yet to provide anything of substance.

Originally posted by Strangelove
He has no credibility whatsoever. I study American politics as my major in school and he's trying to lecture all of us on American politics, where he has strong opinions and little else. He has yet to provide anything of substance.
The only thing is... You haven't either.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Most of the political shows are either hosted by right-wingers like Limbaugh, Hannity, or O'Reilly, or by people who rarely show a preference. Why? Because Democrats aren't mudslingers like Republicans are.

Talk show hosts do not represent the views of the public. He has no credibility whatsoever. I study American politics as my major in school and he's trying to lecture all of us on American politics, where he has strong opinions and little else. He has yet to provide anything of substance.

They don't have to be mudslingers, but they could stand up for their beliefs in a more meaningful way.

And thanks to the new and wonderful area of election law, we are required to study politics as part of our education.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The only thing is... You haven't either. I don't need to prove myself to you Originally posted by Starhawk
They don't have to be mudslingers, but they could stand up for their beliefs in a more meaningful way.

And thanks to the new and wonderful area of election law, we are required to study politics as part of our education. I watch political commentary all the time. I see people on the left defending themselves admirably, but then they get shouted down by the right-wing media whores.

Then they need to learn how to "shout" louder.

So your solution is that mild-mannered, decent people should debase themselves to the level of their opponents for a cheap victory? Fantastic

pointless rhetoric devoid of any practicality FTW

Originally posted by Strangelove
I don't need to prove myself to you B]
It's a prequesite if you want to act "Holier then thou".


Don't call someone non-credible if you can't establish your own credibility.

No, that when the republicans try to be cheap and sling mud at them. They stand up and shout "NO!", That they say "No we are not antiwar or anti-religion or tax loving radicals. We simply believe in things like affordable health care and that everyone in America deserves a right to live and not suffer, not just the rich. And that we need to start fixing the problems in our house before we go out into the world and try to tell everyone else how to live like we do. That we need to support medical research whether or not the religious groups give it their blessing or not. In fact we need far less religion and far more practical thought put into how the US is run." They need to stand up and stop looking for ways to work WITH the republicans and start looking for ways to stop them.

Originally posted by Starhawk
No, that when the republicans try to be cheap and sling mud at them. They stand up and shout "NO!", That they say "No we are not antiwar or anti-religion or tax loving radicals. We simply believe in things like affordable health care and that everyone in America deserves a right to live and not suffer, not just the rich. And that we need to start fixing the problems in our house before we go out into the world and try to tell everyone else how to live like we do. That we need to support medical research whether or not the religious groups give it their blessing or not. In fact we need far less religion and far more practical thought put into how the US is run." They need to stand up and stop looking for ways to work WITH the republicans and start looking for ways to stop them.

and more:

Originally posted by Schecter
pointless rhetoric devoid of any practicality FTW

**************************************************


"Screw you guys, I'm going home."

So as a substitute for debating skills and valid counter points, you just act sarcastic?

Originally posted by Starhawk
So as a substitute for debating skills and valid counter points, you just act sarcastic?

What's to counter, your pointless opions?

"Not just the rich... blah. blah, blah, down with religion... blah blah, blah, stop waging war... blah, blah, blah, tell people how to live... blah, blah, blah" etc.

Originally posted by Robtard
What's to counter, your pointless opions?

LOL the fallback of someone who can't do it.

Originally posted by Starhawk
LOL the fallback of someone who can't do it.

You win!

Originally posted by Starhawk
No, that when the republicans try to be cheap and sling mud at them. They stand up and shout "NO!", That they say "No we are not antiwar or anti-religion or tax loving radicals. We simply believe in things like affordable health care and that everyone in America deserves a right to live and not suffer, not just the rich. And that we need to start fixing the problems in our house before we go out into the world and try to tell everyone else how to live like we do. That we need to support medical research whether or not the religious groups give it their blessing or not. In fact we need far less religion and far more practical thought put into how the US is run." They need to stand up and stop looking for ways to work WITH the republicans and start looking for ways to stop them.

For anyone interested in an intellegent debate...

Originally posted by Starhawk
The fact that they are scared to call the republicans on their failures in any meaningful way or challenge their polices or take steps to halt their actions.

Have you seen anything going on in Washington the past 4 months?

Originally posted by Starhawk
For anyone interested in an intellegent debate...


Lol and my summary is better:

Originally posted by Robtard

"Not just the rich... blah. blah, blah, down with religion... blah blah, blah, stop waging war... blah, blah, blah, tell people how to live... blah, blah, blah" etc.

Originally posted by chithappens
Have you seen anything going on in Washington the past 4 months?

Yes, I've seen the democrats puff up their chest to look tough, the republicans standing up and the democrats running away scared saying "Please don't hurt me."

Originally posted by Robtard
Lol and my summary is better:

If you have nothing to contribute other then sarcastic one-liners...

Originally posted by Starhawk
If you have nothing to contribute other then sarcastic one-liners...

Come on now, at least admit that I covered your crucial "points"...

Starhawk, there isn't much to add. Everyone else has dealt with you.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You'd have more credibility if you explained why he's wrong.

Anyone can just call people stupid. That's how children argue.

Saying "democrats are scared of republicans" is stupid as hell. On what basis? "Scared of" and showing how is another thing.

That's like saying America didn't go into WWII at the beginning because they were scared. Again, on what basis?

Originally posted by Robtard
Come on now, at least admit that I covered your crucial "points"...

"Blah blah blah" covers nothing, and is below my interest really. I'm looking for intellectual debate.

Originally posted by chithappens
Saying "democrats are scared of republicans" is stupid as hell. On what basis? "Scared of" and showing how is another thing.

That's like saying America didn't go into WWII at the beginning because they were scared. Again, on what basis?

The fact that they won't call the republicans on their failures or stand up to them politically.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Yes, I've seen the democrats puff up their chest to look tough, the republicans standing up and the democrats running away scared saying "Please don't hurt me."

This is false. Are you looking at Fox News or something?

Originally posted by Starhawk
"Blah blah blah" covers nothing, and is below my interest really. I'm looking for intellectual debate.

Then post something besides:
Originally posted by Schecter
pointless rhetoric devoid of any practicality FTW
and you'll receive what you seek.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I was watching CNN today and there was Nancy Pelosi talking about how the house needs to work WITH the white house. What is wrong with her? What they need to do is cut all funding and bring the troops home. Also she talked about instead of cutting the funding, just managing it more and instead of pulling out the troops she wants to change the nature of their mission to other areas.

This is what is wrong with the Democrats and I am a left wing person myself in ideology. But do they not realize that cutting the funding for the war is a win/win for them? Not only would they look strong by over-ruling the republicans. But also most of America wants the war over and this is what they were voted in to do.

All I can say is this is just another big let down from the spineless Democrats. And this makes me very upset because I would like nothing better then to see the republicans out of power.

Nothing is wrong with the democrats. Whats wrong with you?

I don't consider people with concerns for others to be "spineless" I consider ideologues who cant objectively look at a situation and work out a rational solution to be spineless.

Originally posted by Robtard
Then post something besides:

and you'll receive what you seek.

Saying its that is one thing, prove it to me with intelligent counter points or don't waste my time.

Originally posted by Alliance
Nothing is wrong with the democrats. Whats wrong with you?

I don't consider people with concerns for others to be "spineless" I consider ideologues who cant objectively look at a situation and work out a rational solution to be spineless.

You don't work something out when you believe the other side to be blatantly wrong.

My problem is that you say all this stuff when it is not covered factually:

1) Democrats are the majority now. They have made a stand; you just missed it a while ago I guess. What do they have to be scared of? That demeans the whole notion of a democracy to begin with. If you really think that why do you think that is? What stopping the democrats?

2) You are making all these claims with no facts or links to anything.

3) You keep saying "stop the funding" but that's not realistic to just stop it today and move out. Politically, that's a killer for the US.

Not to mention, the war began with hidden agendas abound and there's no reason to think those do not still exist.