Bush gets funding passed without timetable...(wTfPwN'z Dems.)
Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.
sithsaber408
Congress reluctantly approves billions for war
Democrats, conceding to Bush, don't insist on troop withdrawal timetable
WASHINGTON - Bowing to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate reluctantly approved fresh billions for the Iraq war on Thursday, minus the troop withdrawal timeline that drew his earlier veto.
(Full article) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18841182/
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/w/b/bush_finger_flip.jpg
KidRock
The democrats letting people step all over them?! unheard of.
FeceMan
This will not end well.
xmarksthespot
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Congress reluctantly approves billions for war
Democrats, conceding to Bush, don't insist on troop withdrawal timetable
WASHINGTON - Bowing to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate reluctantly approved fresh billions for the Iraq war on Thursday, minus the troop withdrawal timeline that drew his earlier veto.
(Full article) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18841182/
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/w/b/bush_finger_flip.jpg
Hooray, your war is a multibillion dollar drain on your economy and your soldiers will remain in Iraq indefinitely? Let's party like it's 1999?
Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Hooray, your war is a multibillion dollar drain on your economy and your soldiers will remain in Iraq indefinitely?
w00tw00t
StyleTime
For what exactly is sithsaber408 celebrating this?
xmarksthespot
Originally posted by StyleTime
I don't quite understand for what sithsaber408 is celebrating this. Well despite the fact that it's likely the equivalent to the GDP of whole nations is being spent on this war, and thousands of people on both sides are dying, the Democrats had to make a concession to President Bush so that the current troops over in Iraq (indefinitely) aren't underfunded and therefore more likely to die. So it's sexy party time.
sithsaber408
Originally posted by StyleTime
For what exactly is sithsaber408 celebrating this?
I was being provacative.
I guess the real question is: Wasn't Bush supposed to be a lame duck president?
Weren't the elections of '06 somehow the "voice of the nation" that the war must end and that Dems were going to hand bush his butt?
Weren't they going to stick it to Bush?
They caved, none of that's happening?
Discuss.Originally posted by FeceMan
This will not end well. Does it ever?
Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I guess the real question is: Wasn't Bush supposed to be a lame duck president?
Weren't the elections of '06 somehow the "voice of the nation" that the war must end and that Dems were going to hand bush his butt?
Weren't they going to stick it to Bush?
They caved, none of that's happening?
Discuss.
The spineless idiots however well intentioned they may be.
Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Hooray, your war is a multibillion dollar drain on your economy and your soldiers will remain in Iraq indefinitely? Let's party like it's 1999?
As much as I support the troops, I have to agree here. reluctantly, but done.
debbiejo
This is terribly sad.
StyleTime
Yeah? So are you when you cry.
chithappens
They always say to Dems "you don't support the troops" if they vote against things like this and most people who do not know the issues agree with no basis.
It's a lose-lose here. This is just stupid.
Anyone catch that "If the Iraqi government ask us to leave, we will," quote by Bush? This is going to end really ****ed up.
StyleTime
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Well despite the fact that it's likely the equivalent to the GDP of whole nations is being spent on this war, and thousands of people on both sides are dying, the Democrats had to make a concession to President Bush so that the current troops over in Iraq (indefinitely) aren't underfunded and therefore more likely to die. So it's sexy party time.
............................Oh. Well uh...care to dance?
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I was being provacative.
I guess the real question is: Wasn't Bush supposed to be a lame duck president?
Weren't the elections of '06 somehow the "voice of the nation" that the war must end and that Dems were going to hand bush his butt?
Weren't they going to stick it to Bush?
They caved, none of that's happening?
Discuss. Does it ever?
Honestly sithsaber408, what was the Congress supposed to do? Deny the unfortunate troops money? I don't see how this is caving in. Believe it or not, democrats care for the welfare of our troops too. Noone wants to see them underfunded while they are over there.
chithappens
Originally posted by StyleTime
Honestly sithsaber408, what was the Congress supposed to do? Deny the unfortunate troops money? I don't see how this is caving in. Believe it or not, democrats care for the welfare of our troops too. Noone wants to see them underfunded while they are over there.
Exactly.
This was a no win situation. You can't put you foot down on a deadline because Bush has said he will veto anything with a deadline (up to this point) but you can't let the troops go without resources.
And throwing Al Queda back in this in just some crazy crooked shit because they were not there at first to begin with!
F'n intelligence being skewed. Yeah, I trust this administration
Devil King
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Congress reluctantly approves billions for war
Democrats, conceding to Bush, don't insist on troop withdrawal timetable
WASHINGTON - Bowing to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate reluctantly approved fresh billions for the Iraq war on Thursday, minus the troop withdrawal timeline that drew his earlier veto.
(Full article) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18841182/
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/w/b/bush_finger_flip.jpg
And you're actually ignorant enough to assume that Bush and the democrats don't serve the same people? At this point in time you actually want to believe there is anything Bush could do to promote his own agenda? You are actually stupid enough to assume that it's all come down to the talking point of funding "our troops"? Not one damn thing Bush did is going to make the democrats roll over. Nothing. Is there a more apparent, more simple term I should use? This issue shold illustrate the simple minded nature of all politics, not the the bullshit you hold to be truth. You're likely the same kind of person who says Ron Paul is an idiot and Rudy is the one speaking truth to power. By all means, be the first lemming off the cliff.
Keep posting a photoshopped picture of Bush, because it's all you have left of this supposed bible thumper, lame duck president. Oh, there's no real picture of Bush being the "stand up" president you hold him out to be, so I guess you'll have to keep relying on that bullshit, photoshopped picture to illuminate the
"integrity" of the man. Idiot. By posting a fake picture over and over again, all you do is strengthen the case for the people who despise your ideology, and his. Could there be a better metaphore? I doubt it. Pick up a book. The very bible-thumping members of his own administration, the David Kuos if you will, who have served him and written extensively on the punch line aspect that you people have become, are telling you...point blank...that you've been lied to, and you still don't get it. You've been used! Wake the **** UP! Keep beating the drums of a rally cry that no longer applies to you.
chithappens
I mostly agree King, but what are citizens supposed to do?
Just wondering what you think.
Devil King
Originally posted by chithappens
I mostly agree King, but what are citizens supposed to do?
Just wondering what you think.
Turn off their televisions and put down the bag of fritos. And pick up a news paper or act interested in the least.
It's a cop out to say that the vast majority of consumer education comes from government programs. The citizen him or herself should hold some responsability in educating themselves.
chithappens
Agreed but I think this has to deal with the miseducation of Americans and the lies we are told about history.
For example, if you look in a high school history textbook ( I have seen this in college also) every American (president are the worst) are looked up like some pseudo god who knows all and has no flaws.
I am still shocked how many people do not see how eerily similar this is to those Latin American voyages in the early 20th century with Wilson (example: US Marines invade Haiti in 1915 and forced Haitian legislature to select the "preferred" candidate; of course this happened in other places also, including the 1914 invasion of Mexico during its' civil war) but Wilson is almost never given real criticism, or I have seen it IGNORED ALTOGETHER.
We are not taught to think critically - "Just accept what the government does because it is in your best interest."
It is a concern but I'm not sure how to get the majority to understand this.
ragesRemorse
man i am pulling for bush from now on. Never really gave the guy a chance, always saw through his facade more so than any other president, but heres hopin he bombs iran before his term is over.
chithappens
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
man i am pulling for bush from now on. Never really gave the guy a chance, always saw through his facade more so than any other president, but heres hopin he bombs iran before his term is over.
And what would bombing Iran accomplish exactly?
Devil King
Originally posted by chithappens
Agreed but I think this has to deal with the miseducation of Americans and the lies we are told about history.
For example, if you look in a high school history textbook ( I have seen this in college also) every American (president are the worst) are looked up like some pseudo god who knows all and has no flaws.
I am still shocked how many people do not see how eerily similar this is to those Latin American voyages in the early 20th century with Wilson (example: US Marines invade Haiti in 1915 and forced Haitian legislature to select the "preferred" candidate; of course this happened in other places also, including the 1914 invasion of Mexico during its' civil war) but Wilson is almost never given real criticism, or I have seen it IGNORED ALTOGETHER.
We are not taught to think critically - "Just accept what the government does because it is in your best interest."
It is a concern but I'm not sure how to get the majority to understand this.
So, your point is to assume that ignorance is a way of life and to cater to it? It isn't necessary. People are stupid, sure, but why should The Daily Show be the "smart mans" news outlet? (when it isn't) At some point sarcasm needs to be put away in favor of actual news, and actual news needs to be reported. And I love the Daily show.
chithappens
That was not my point. I merely said I do not know how to address that to the majority or even my peers who don't give a **** about what happened today because they believe it does not affect them at all.
You continue to mention "actual news" but people do not care because they are told that "the government will handle it for them."
It is not until something like 9/11 occurs that people pay attention for a month or so; they think they might be next so then they look up.
Devil King
Originally posted by chithappens
That was not my point. I merely said I do not know how to address that to the majority or even my peers who don't give a **** about what happened today because they believe it does not affect them at all.
You continue to mention "actual news" but people do not care because they are told that "the government will handle it for them."
It is not until something like 9/11 occurs that people pay attention for a month or so; they think they might be next so then they look up.
I don't "continue" to mention actual news, all I mention is the rational assumption that people pay attention to things based on the very human capacity for self-preservation. We have an entire nation of people who know how to microwave dinner, but couldn't possibly be asked to cook a piece of meat and a side of vegitables for themselves. A nation of fast food consuming, let someone else worry about it, sheep.
How am I supposed to answer a question like "how do we change it?", when an event like 9/11 failed on every level to make people pay any real attention? Look back on WW2. That made people wake up and start to sacrifice...to change their ways. Well, we've seen that a 9/11-Pearl Harbour event happened....and we did as we were told. To go out and shop and spend as always. But how was PH anything like 9/11? Are we to assume that Japan wasn't involved, but Iraq was?
we want to heap all our poroblems on a word like "terrorism" and make it simple. Sorry, but that's not the case. How is the answer to this kind of stupidity anything less than the root cause for it? We can say that to make the world work through legitimate means is to allow democracy and republics to take hold, but that hasn't worked. So, maybe fascism...well, that hasn't worked....and it's been tried here in America. As George Carlin said: "Germany may have lost the second world war, but Fascism won it". And that's the bastardized version of "freedom" we've been experiening here in the US of A, as well as The UK, since then.
There are very clearly defined methods through which our government works for us, and the current political system doesn't want to disrupt the very foundation they've bastardized into working for them. That's the beauty of the america constitution. It's a living document that was set up to change based on teh time in which it's operates, without denying the hard fought education it's acheived in its past. And I'm sorry, but the modern American political system has made sure it doesn't change, to serve it's own ends. We wave banners that quote amendments to the constituition as though they were handed down to us by a man in flip flops on the side of a mountain...which somehow implies that thoses biblical mandates can't be altered either.
So, you ask what are we supopsed to do to illuminate the reality of the situation to a nation of willfully ignorant, retards out there that don't get that. So far, it's been to include religion and quote rhetorical, party line, propoganda to them...and get them to regurgitate it in private conversation as though it was their own idea, their own notion of reality. Well, the very foundation of our country is based on the notion of speaking truth and disagreement to power, instead too many of us have bought into the notion that speaking out against it is somehow akin to the threat of terrorism.
So, if you want to change things, then address the root cause of the stupidity, not the propogated stupidity that has been the result of a badly abused situation. Hence, the existence of this thread at all.
ragesRemorse
Originally posted by chithappens
And what would bombing Iran accomplish exactly?
entertainment
we need another good world war to reboot the system
Darth Macabre
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
man i am pulling for bush from now on. Never really gave the guy a chance, always saw through his facade more so than any other president, but heres hopin he bombs iran before his term is over. ....
Is this what America has come to?
ragesRemorse
Originally posted by Darth Macabre
....
Is this what America has come to?
as long as i can get my super sized chicken mcnugget meal, while being able to buy mass items produced from slave labour and poorly made materials all while sipping on my Venti iced white chocolate mocha with two squirts of rasberry and one squirt of toffe nut with extra whipped cream....i dont give a shit who gets bombed, but ill pretend like i care and know why.
thats what America has come to
Strangelove
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Congress reluctantly approves billions for war
Democrats, conceding to Bush, don't insist on troop withdrawal timetable
WASHINGTON - Bowing to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate reluctantly approved fresh billions for the Iraq war on Thursday, minus the troop withdrawal timeline that drew his earlier veto.
(Full article) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18841182/
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/w/b/bush_finger_flip.jpg
Yes, because Congress decided to take the high road and actually fund our troops on the ground, even though they would much rather bring our fighting men and women home from policing a civil war. Unfortunately, childish and stubborn to point of insanity, Bush and his administration decided to not only veto the bill that would bring our armed forces out of harm's way, but the extended their tours of duty. Not only that, but those who are fortunate enough to come home, perhaps with an injury or post-traumatic stress disorder, they get sub-substandard care at military Walter Reed Hospital, whose appalling failures are then denied by those put in charge of said hospital by our erstwhile commander-in-chief. Who then, out of the two (Bush and Congress), is doing more to support the troops?
wtfpwn'z indeed
People like you make me sick.
Schecter
democrats prove useless, spineless, and in dereliction of the dutie in which they were elected. the pwned themselves. barrack who? unless edwards gets the nomination i wont be voting in 08
oh, and SS. shove that stupid pic straight up your ass
debbiejo
Originally posted by Devil King
Turn off their televisions and put down the bag of fritos. And pick up a news paper or act interested in the least.
It's a cop out to say that the vast majority of consumer education comes from government programs. The citizen him or herself should hold some responsability in educating themselves. I totally agree. People can take some actions too. They usually just don't feel like it. They don't call their congressman nor rally. One thing that really irks me is when people complain, yet do nothing about it. Complacency does nothing.
lil bitchiness
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
entertainment
we need another good world war to reboot the system
Yeah, maybe Iran should bomb America, kill few thousand innocent people. To reboot the system. And entertain us who are not in America.
Schecter
i find the act of celebrating the continued deaths of civilians and soldiers with cheerleading, stupid pictures and smilies, and taunts to be disgusting and deserving of having one's balls kicked until they pop.
this isnt a ****ing football game SS. you should enlist and take a bullet right through your skull. not like you're using your brain for anything regardless.
Bardock42
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Congress reluctantly approves billions for war
Democrats, conceding to Bush, don't insist on troop withdrawal timetable
WASHINGTON - Bowing to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate reluctantly approved fresh billions for the Iraq war on Thursday, minus the troop withdrawal timeline that drew his earlier veto.
(Full article) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18841182/
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/w/b/bush_finger_flip.jpg
Haha, soo great, more US soldiers dying. Haha, I love it. Go Bush.Death to the US.
I support that man fully. Whatever makes the US weaker.
1 more year!!!!
ragesRemorse
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Yeah, maybe Iran should bomb America, kill few thousand innocent people. To reboot the system. And entertain us who are not in America.
what the hell is the matter with you, thats just sick...you Nazi commy
Schecter
i think stupid western middle class people should be gassed.
"who me?"
yes you
...get into my car
ragesRemorse
funny...i think the western rich and poor classes should be gassed they do nothing for anyone but take. Lets gas em all....we havent had any real good mass gassings in a while
Schecter
yeah, sure. im cool with that.
note to democratic house pussies: that is compromise
botankus
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Yeah, maybe Iran should bomb America, kill few thousand innocent people.
Can we start with California?
ragesRemorse
Originally posted by Schecter
yeah, sure. im cool with that.
note to democratic house pussies: that is compromise
"grabs the Zyklon B"
I got the gas...you know of any good gassing facilities?
Bardock42
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
funny...i think the western rich and poor classes should be gassed they do nothing for anyone but take. Lets gas em all....we havent had any real good mass gassings in a while Rich people didn't do anything?
ragesRemorse
Originally posted by Bardock42
Rich people didn't do anything?
was that a question?
Bardock42
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
was that a question? Note the question mark.
ragesRemorse
Originally posted by Bardock42
Note the question mark.
Yeah, i just fail to find the connection between the question and the post
however, i am very slow and dim witted.
rich people diddnt do anything
Bardock42
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
Yeah, i just fail to find the connection between the question and the post
however, i am very slow and dim witted.
rich people diddnt do anything How so?
sithsaber408
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I was being provacative.
I guess the real question is: Wasn't Bush supposed to be a lame duck president?
Weren't the elections of '06 somehow the "voice of the nation" that the war must end and that Dems were going to hand bush his butt?
Weren't they going to stick it to Bush?
They caved, none of that's happening?
Discuss. Does it ever?
^^^As I said, that is the true question of the thread.
I apologize for the photoshop, as it seems to have everybody up in arms. (My conservative sense of humor, sorry.)
I've seen a few good responses, mostly that the Dems don't want to screw the troops whilst having Bush give up the war.
So they didn't fight the funding bill.
I can understand that.
But they had a version of it that required troops to come home by certain points of time, in effect ending the war.
This was vetoed, and they have dropped that line of thinking. (For now it seems.)
So again I ask, what happened?
I thought that the Dems "sweeping" the '06 elections and taking a majority in the House and the Senate was supposed to end the control of Bush, or at least make him compromise on his agendas.
But it's the Dems, the new majority, who are comprimising with Bush, who now will get to try his "summer surge" of 5 battalions of troops to get Baghdad under control.
Does this have anything to do with the recently de-classified info. of Bin Laden using Al-Queada operatives in Iraq to plan attacks on the U.S. and other areas?
Does it have anything to do with Bush's claims that the de-classified info. includes more terror plots that were foiled, things that we just don't know about as they happen?
Or is this just a bump in the road for Dems?
Will they still be able to "Stick it to the Man"?
Discuss.
Schecter
stfu clown. just continue trolling and post your silly pictures and taunt people for giving a shit about other people dying by the thousands (americans included)
do your silly clown gag, but ffs dont think you can then turn around and make this a serious discussion....your "wTfPwN'z Lolz warz deathz hahahaz" thread
want an intelligent debate here? you can start by leaving
botankus
Love the new avi.
sithsaber408
Originally posted by Schecter
stfu clown. just continue trolling and post your silly pictures and taunt people for giving a shit about other people dying by the thousands (americans included)
do your silly clown gag, but ffs dont think you can then turn around and make this a serious discussion....your "wTfPwN'z Lolz warz deathz hahahaz" thread
want an intelligent debate here? you can start by leaving
You respond to what you say is clown behavior with more clown behavior?
And what you acknowledge as a return to serious discussion by refusing to discuss?
Fail.
(just like the dems have failed so far to do anything about Bush's agenda. Contrary to their campaign speeches.)
chithappens
Originally posted by sithsaber408
You respond to what you say is clown behavior with more clown behavior?
And what you acknowledge as a return to serious discussion by refusing to discuss?
Fail.
(just like the dems have failed so far to do anything about Bush's agenda. Contrary to their campaign speeches.)
So not giving the troops funding although they would still be in Iraq would prove what exactly?
Schecter
Originally posted by sithsaber408
You respond to what you say is clown behavior with more clown behavior?
im dead serious. now go benefit our country by choking on a chicken bone, k?
mindless cheerleaders and armchair warriors like yourself need to just choke on something.
Robtard
Originally posted by sithsaber408
^^^As I said, that is the true question of the thread.
I apologize for the photoshop, as it seems to have everybody up in arms. (My conservative sense of humor, sorry.)
I've seen a few good responses, mostly that the Dems don't want to screw the troops whilst having Bush give up the war.
So they didn't fight the funding bill.
I can understand that.
But they had a version of it that required troops to come home by certain points of time, in effect ending the war.
This was vetoed, and they have dropped that line of thinking. (For now it seems.)
So again I ask, what happened?
I thought that the Dems "sweeping" the '06 elections and taking a majority in the House and the Senate was supposed to end the control of Bush, or at least make him compromise on his agendas.
But it's the Dems, the new majority, who are comprimising with Bush, who now will get to try his "summer surge" of 5 battalions of troops to get Baghdad under control.
Does this have anything to do with the recently de-classified info. of Bin Laden using Al-Queada operatives in Iraq to plan attacks on the U.S. and other areas?
Does it have anything to do with Bush's claims that the de-classified info. includes more terror plots that were foiled, things that we just don't know about as they happen?
Or is this just a bump in the road for Dems?
Will they still be able to "Stick it to the Man"?
Discuss.
More important question, why isn't Bush agreeable with deadlines, any deadlines?? Don't you think if Iraqi law enforcement and military branches knew they had up to a certain point in time to get their shit together, they'd push harder to get their shit together? Wasn't it Bush's plan that the Iraqis run their own country and fend for themselves as an independent nation?
Flashback to 1999, when George W. Bush was governor of Texas, campaigning for president and criticizing the Clinton Administration for not setting a timetable for exiting the Kosovo war.
Bush told the Houston Chronicle (April 9, 1999):
“Victory means an exit strategy, and it's important for a president to explain what the exit strategy is.”
Then he told the Scripps Howard/Seattle Post-Intelligencer (June 5, 1999):
“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”
Discuss that Sith.
sithsaber408
Originally posted by Robtard
More important question, why isn't Bush agreeable with deadlines, any deadlines?? Don't you think if Iraqi law enforcement and military branches knew they had up to a certain point in time to get their shit together, they'd push harder to get their shit together? Wasn't it Bush's plan that the Iraqis run their own country and fend for themselves as an independent nation?
Discuss that Sith.
He's against the currently proposed timetables because they are too soon.
Training and fully equiping Iraqi Army, police, and even political officials will likely take 4 or 5 more years to get them to optimum levels.
NOBODY wants to hear that, and he's not saying that, but that would be my guess as to his rejection of the timetables/deadlines.
He wants the Iraqi's to take control, it just aint happening (in a good, complete way) by the end of next year.
Point discussed.
Now back to the other questions:
The Dems had a version of the funding bill that required troops to come home by certain points of time, in effect ending the war.
This was vetoed, and they have dropped that line of thinking. (For now it seems.)
So again I ask, what happened?
I thought that the Dems "sweeping" the '06 elections and taking a majority in the House and the Senate was supposed to end the control of Bush, or at least make him compromise on his agendas.
But it's the Dems, the new majority, who are comprimising with Bush, who now will get to try his "summer surge" of 5 battalions of troops to get Baghdad under control.
Does this have anything to do with the recently de-classified info. of Bin Laden using Al-Queada operatives in Iraq to plan attacks on the U.S. and other areas?
Does it have anything to do with Bush's claims that the de-classified info. includes more terror plots that were foiled, things that we just don't know about as they happen?
Or is this just a bump in the road for Dems?
Will they still be able to "Stick it to the Man"?
Discuss.
chithappens
Ku Ku Ku.
Nice one
Edit: Sigh, I should've quoted Robtard
Robtard
Originally posted by sithsaber408
He's against the currently proposed timetables because they are too soon.
Training and fully equiping Iraqi Army, police, and even political officials will likely take 4 or 5 more years to get them to optimum levels.
NOBODY wants to hear that, and he's not saying that, but that would be my guess as to his rejection of the timetables/deadlines.
He wants the Iraqi's to take control, it just aint happening (in a good, complete way) by the end of next year.
Point discussed.
Now back to the other questions:
The Dems had a version of the funding bill that required troops to come home by certain points of time, in effect ending the war.
This was vetoed, and they have dropped that line of thinking. (For now it seems.)
So again I ask, what happened?
I thought that the Dems "sweeping" the '06 elections and taking a majority in the House and the Senate was supposed to end the control of Bush, or at least make him compromise on his agendas.
But it's the Dems, the new majority, who are comprimising with Bush, who now will get to try his "summer surge" of 5 battalions of troops to get Baghdad under control.
Does this have anything to do with the recently de-classified info. of Bin Laden using Al-Queada operatives in Iraq to plan attacks on the U.S. and other areas?
Does it have anything to do with Bush's claims that the de-classified info. includes more terror plots that were foiled, things that we just don't know about as they happen?
Or is this just a bump in the road for Dems?
Will they still be able to "Stick it to the Man"?
Discuss.
It's a lose-lose for the Dems, anything the put forward that can potentially end the war will be vetoed before it hit's the oval office, so what are they to do? Cut money and starve the troops? Obviously they can't.
You saying "Stick it to the man" is funny, considering we Americans will soon be 85 billion dollars more in debt and probably even more since there's no deadline... guess who's going to shoulder the bill? You guessed it, your children and grandchildren... talk about "taxation without representation". The man is sticking it to us and our future offspring, and you're gleefully supplying the barrels.
What did you think of the two Bush quotes I posted though?
chithappens
Anyone else notice how Bush proposes this bill but then had the nerve to challenge Dems as to how they would balance the budget?
That was such an ******* thing to say, Ku Ku Ku
sithsaber408
Originally posted by Robtard
It's a lose-lose for the Dems, anything the put forward that can potentially end the war will be vetoed before it hit's the oval office, so what are they to do? Cut money and starve the troops? Obviously they can't.
You saying "Stick it to the man" is funny, considering we Americans will soon be 85 billion dollars more in debt and probably even more since there's no deadline... guess who's going to shoulder the bill? You guessed it, your children and grandchildren... talk about "taxation without representation". The man is sticking it to us and our future offspring, and you're gleefully supplying the barrels.
What did you think of the two Bush quotes I posted though?
I think those quotes represent his thoughts.
Changes need to be made, Iraqi's need to be trained, a timed goal should be set.
I also think that he personally believes that timetable will be more like 4 or 5 years, and so he rejects all of the Dems short-term timetables.
(he doesn't actually voice this because it would be politcal suicide, but that would be my closest guess.)
The rest of your post is spot-on, we will all be shouldering the debt for this war. I and my kids and grandkids.
Hopefully this war and any others like it will mean that I and my kids and grandkids aren't shouldering death and destruction from more terror attacks.
Time will tell.
But the issues that I'm bringing up aren't getting answered.
I agree it was a lose-lose as far as trying to cut funds cut, or appear that they were cutting funds.
But why back down on the timetable requirement for the funds?
Why not try impeachment?
Why not try to force a House and Senate vote to just end the war?
I thought that the Dems '06 Elections were a "representation of America's desire for change, their displeasure with Bush, and their need for this war to end." (according to Dems.)
Yet the Dems have done very little for those voters to counter-act Bush (whose supposed to be a "lame-duck" for the rest of his term), or oppose his policies.
Their one attempt was vetoed, and they (even with the majority in the House and the Senate) couldn't get the veto overidden.
If that's where it's at and thats where it will stay, then their slim majority in the senate and larger one in the house mean absolutely nothing.
Indeed, though it was a joke, as the title suggests, Bush has kept all his agendas on track, is getting just what he wants in Iraq and has by himself pwnt the Dems.
Discuss.
Schecter
notice how he just makes up nonsensical rhetoric (declares to be able to read bush's mind in essence), avoids the point of the question, and requotes himself (yet again), as if you didnt even make a valid point worth addressing.
talk about sucking at life.
Robtard
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I think those quotes represent his thoughts.
Changes need to be made, Iraqi's need to be trained, a timed goal should be set.
I also think that he personally believes that timetable will be more like 4 or 5 years, and so he rejects all of the Dems short-term timetables.
(he doesn't actually voice this because it would be politcal suicide, but that would be my closest guess.)
The rest of your post is spot-on, we will all be shouldering the debt for this war. I and my kids and grandkids.
Hopefully this war and any others like it will mean that I and my kids and grandkids aren't shouldering death and destruction from more terror attacks.
Time will tell.
But the issues that I'm bringing up aren't getting answered.
I agree it was a lose-lose as far as trying to cut funds cut, or appear that they were cutting funds.
But why back down on the timetable requirement for the funds?
Why not try impeachment?
Why not try to force a House and Senate vote to just end the war?
I thought that the Dems '06 Elections were a "representation of America's desire for change, their displeasure with Bush, and their need for this war to end." (according to Dems.)
Yet the Dems have done very little for those voters to counter-act Bush (whose supposed to be a "lame-duck" for the rest of his term), or oppose his policies.
Their one attempt was vetoed, and they (even with the majority in the House and the Senate) couldn't get the veto overidden.
If that's where it's at and thats where it will stay, then their slim majority in the senate and larger one in the house mean absolutely nothing.
Indeed, though it was a joke, as the title suggests, Bush has kept all his agendas on track, is getting just what he wants in Iraq and has by himself pwnt the Dems.
Discuss.
And aren't those thoughts hypocritical in hindsight? He bashed Clinton for doing the same exact thing he accused him of. That doesn't bother you just a little? it doesn't raise an eyebrow and make you ask questions?
Guessing what Bush is "thinking" is a lame move... Fact is, when the war started old Rummy said something along the lines of "the war shouldn't take more than 6 months and Iraq will be stable"... Five years later we're still at it, with no set goals or scheduling from our president and you're thinking we'll just wait another 4-5 years to see what happens; that is sound reasoning to you?
I know things change as time progresses and "tweaks" need to be made. Seriously though, you don't think the president should in the very least express his thoughts to Americans (and the Iraqis) on the matter and not keep his mouth shut for "fear of political suicide"? In case you haven't noticed, he's on the ass-end of his second term, he can't run again, what "political suicide" would he be committing?
Because they can't, what part of that can't you understand, it's a lose-lose scenario for them. Impeachments hurt the country as a whole and an "impeached" president doesn't have to step down... Clinton was impeached, did he leave office.
Oh, the great cry of the Patriot... "We'll pay the debt to save lives..." All the while you're happily bending over, spreading your ass cheeks to the point of causing a fissure while not questioning anything. Patriots question their leaders, not blindly follow.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/PVS/bushbarney.jpg
Now bark for him fanboy, he likes it when you talk dirty.
sithsaber408
But he still gets done what he wants, doesn't he?
No amount of elections, or Democrat skwawking has changed that has it?
I'm on his side, you're not.
Who is the one getting screwed?
Schecter
wow, you really an idiot and a coward
now ride that unicycle
Robtard
Originally posted by sithsaber408
But he still gets done what he wants, doesn't he?
No amount of elections, or Democrat skwawking has changed that has it?
I'm on his side, you're not.
Whose the one getting screwed?
This time, yes; as noted, the Dems had no choice, it was the proverbial "stuck between a rock and a hard place".
This isn't about sides you pawn... I'm on America's side; what's best for America, as I live here... that's why I don't blindly follow and not ask questions of Bush or any president when my "bullshit" meter goes off.
We're all getting screwed and you agreed (was it a Freudian?) when you said I was "spot on" about my assessment... you're just to blinded to see it or even think of seeing it.
You didn't answer any of my three questions though, just responded with 'MY SIDE BEAT YOUR SIDE, NANANANA!'
Devil King
Originally posted by sithsaber408
^^^As I said, that is the true question of the thread.
I apologize for the photoshop, as it seems to have everybody up in arms. (My conservative sense of humor, sorry.)
No, the photoshopped picture is a perfect metaphore for your devotion to this administration. And again, I'd love to hear what you think about the religious right being a punchline to the leaders of this administration?
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I've seen a few good responses, mostly that the Dems don't want to screw the troops whilst having Bush give up the war.
You like this answer because you think it validates everything you say about Bush. It does not. What the democrats have decided to do is wait until Sept., when the military commanders of the Iraq situation release their report.
But let me say this to you, and it's something I've said before. If this war ends before Bush leaves office, there can be no argument that this war was to serve his ends, not those of American security or Iraqi freedom.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
So they didn't fight the funding bill.
I can understand that.
But they had a version of it that required troops to come home by certain points of time, in effect ending the war.
This was vetoed, and they have dropped that line of thinking. (For now it seems.)
Again, until the very military commanders that Bush appointed are willing to tell the country it's a cluster fu*k themselves. It isn't because the surge is working.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I thought that the Dems "sweeping" the '06 elections and taking a majority in the House and the Senate was supposed to end the control of Bush, or at least make him compromise on his agendas.
But it's the Dems, the new majority, who are comprimising with Bush, who now will get to try his "summer surge" of 5 battalions of troops to get Baghdad under control.
And maybe you shold ask yourself why?
You could send another 500,000 troops into Iraq and it might calm things down, but it wouldn't bring this to an end.
As for the "sweeping" part, I recall you saying the republicans were going to slam dunk it, that the democrats would be so shut down that by this point we should have been living in a country with no abortion where we'd removed the teaching of evolution from schools. That is why it was "sweeping", because every republican talking head said that it would be a shut out. Also as I've said before, a slight majority is no majority. It was a mandate from the people, but it wasn't the over whelming mandate it was made out to be.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Does this have anything to do with the recently de-classified info. of Bin Laden using Al-Queada operatives in Iraq to plan attacks on the U.S. and other areas?
What? Are you joking? Does it have anything to do with declassified information that was relevant 3 years ago? I think not, if it was ever true in the first place.
Devil King
Originally posted by sithsaber408
But he still gets done what he wants, doesn't he?
No amount of elections, or Democrat skwawking has changed that has it?
I'm on his side, you're not.
Who is the one getting screwed?
I mentioned it before, how do you feel about the bible thumpers being little more than a punchline to this president when he's stood out on the stage and told you he's deeply religious?
Or better yet, how do you feel about the fact that your boy Bush is doing so well in your opinion, but not one Republican presidential candidate is willing to even invoke his name while being on the campaigne trail?
Robtard
Originally posted by Devil King
I mentioned it before, how do you feel about the bible thumpers being little more than a punchline to this president when he's stood out on the stage and told you he's deeply religious?
Or better yet, how do you feel about the fact that your boy Bush is doing so well in your opinion, but not one Republican presidential candidate is willing to even invoke his name while being on the campaigne trail?
To be fair, one guy did once during the GOP convention. It was a Ronald Reagan rimjob-circus for the most part though.
Devil King
Originally posted by Robtard
To be fair, one guy did once during the GOP convention. It was a Ronald Reagan rimjob-circus for the most part though.
Oh, you mean the debate? 1 instance, out of a 2 hour debate involving 10 men and only once is the sitting president envoked? But, he's such a badass that he gets an entire political party to roll over and take it like that pic of him and his dog?
I think not.
inimalist
Originally posted by sithsaber408
But he still gets done what he wants, doesn't he?
No amount of elections, or Democrat skwawking has changed that has it?
I'm on his side, you're not.
Who is the one getting screwed?
people who don't think the government should just "get done what he wants"?
BackFire
Originally posted by sithsaber408
But he still gets done what he wants, doesn't he?
No amount of elections, or Democrat skwawking has changed that has it?
I'm on his side, you're not.
Who is the one getting screwed?
The soldier fighting and dying for Bush's "side". All while Bush sits there ****ing up whatever next speech he's going to give.
Schecter
GO METS DUBYA!!!
*drinks beer*
*farts*
*posts stupid pictures*
BackFire
IT'S NOT JUST A JOB, IT'S A CAREER!
Robtard
I found this quote rather fitting:
"Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions." - Jerry Falwell
Schecter
Originally posted by BackFire
IT'S NOT JUST A JOB, IT'S A CAREER!
http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar106604_5.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar106604_5.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar106604_5.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar106604_5.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar106604_5.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar106604_5.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar106604_5.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar106604_5.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar106604_5.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar106604_5.gif
sithsaber408
Originally posted by Schecter
GO METS DUBYA!!!
*drinks beer*
*farts*
*posts stupid pictures*
I'm a Giants fan.
YAY AREA!
Meh, close the thread then.
Just thought it was interesting that after years of Bush bashing, and both the House and Senate now run by Dems that he still gets what he wants.
I have my own opinions on this of course, I was just wondering what you people thought.
Devil King
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Meh, close the thread then.
So it's a cut and run then?
sithsaber408
Originally posted by Devil King
So it's a cut and run then?
More of a precipitous withdrawal.
Devil King
Originally posted by sithsaber408
More of a precipitous withdrawal.
Don't forget, Star Wars at 30 tonight on g4, and monday there's a history of Star Wars on the History channel. I think it's the history channel.
sithsaber408
Originally posted by Devil King
Don't forget, Star Wars at 30 tonight on g4, and monday there's a history of Star Wars on the History channel. I think it's the history channel.
Poking fun at me, or being serious?
Yeah, it's on History channel on Mon. night.
Didn't know about a G4 show thought, thanks Cap.
lil bitchiness
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
what the hell is the matter with you, thats just sick...you Nazi commy
Oh but its ok to bomb Iranian's for ''entertainment''.
If bombing Iranians is entertaining for you, then bombing Americans is super entertaining for me.
Originally posted by chithappens
And what would bombing Iran accomplish exactly? Originally posted by ragesRemorse
entertainment
we need another good world war to reboot the system
Devil King
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Poking fun at me, or being serious?
How could it be poking fun at you? I'll be watching it myself.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Oh but its ok to bomb Iranian's for ''entertainment''.
If bombing Iranians is entertaining for you, then bombing Americans is super entertaining for me.
No one in the US public thinks bombing Iran would be "for fun". It would be a descision the president makes, and the result would be dead, innocent Iranian citizens. And the reverse would be true. If Iran bombs the US, it will be innocent American citizens that would be killed, maybe even some people on this forum, how could that be super entertaining for you?
Again, I think you need to seperate American citizens from the current administration.
chithappens
Which I choose not to even respond to that at all.
Anyone notice how similar this is to Wilson and his administration? Even the threat to civil liberties is there?
Anyone else know what I am talking about?
xmarksthespot
Originally posted by sithsaber408
But he still gets done what he wants, doesn't he?
No amount of elections, or Democrat skwawking has changed that has it?
I'm on his side, you're not.
Who is the one getting screwed?
I thought people had to be at least 13 to join KMC.
Strangelove
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Their one attempt was vetoed, and they (even with the majority in the House and the Senate) couldn't get the veto overidden. Do you know what it takes to override a veto? A 2/3 Majority in both houses. That means 290 votes in the House and 66 votes in the Senate, whereas the current numbers are 233-202 in the House and 51-49 in the Senate. Overriding a veto is virtually impossible without significant bipartisan support, and the Republicans under House Minority Leader John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell make that highly unlikely.
Faceman
Byrd was right...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMjpPKslZz0
leonheartmm
bush ought to have been shot in the gnads in the second year of prsesidency. hes an *******!
Strangelove
Originally posted by Faceman
Byrd was right...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMjpPKslZz0 I love that old coot.
He shows remarkable amounts of clarity at times, though. Especially in that clip.
Devil King
There is little to be loved about a former member of the KKK, except the word former.
And I suppose there is something positive to be said about someone who comes around to the right perspective, other than his political career.
ragesRemorse
Originally posted by Schecter
http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar106604_5.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar106604_5.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar106604_5.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar106604_5.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar106604_5.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar106604_5.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar106604_5.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar106604_5.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar106604_5.gif http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar106604_5.gif
that shit is sinister
Strangelove
Originally posted by Devil King
There is little to be loved about a former member of the KKK, except the word former.
And I suppose there is something positive to be said about someone who comes around to the right perspective, other than his political career. He was out of the KKK more than a decade before you were born. Let bygones be bygones, for Christ's sake
Robtard
Originally posted by sithsaber408
More of a precipitous withdrawal.
Originally posted by Robtard
You didn't answer any of my three questions though, just responded with 'MY SIDE BEAT YOUR SIDE, NANANANA!'
Trolling @sshole.
FeceMan
What bothers me the most about this thread is the title:
1. The alternating capitalized/uncapitalized letters.
2. The apostrophe.
3. The "z" at the end of "wTfPwN'z."
Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.
Copyright 1999-2024 KillerMovies.