The Republicans cannot be trusted to run the US Government!

Originally posted by PVS
you can kick and cheer for sithsaber all you wish but it simply makes you both wrong. cheering for an imaginary argument with imaginary quotes topped with imaginary truths (congress voting for war/regime change: a lie) does not make you right. it just makes 2 foolish voices instead of 1.

I don't care what their arguments are. I don't cheer for any KMC user with the words "Darth," "Sith," or "Lord" in their username. The overall lack of creativeness in selecting a name allows all their posts to blend together and makes them very easy to ignore.

BlackC@ (formerly BlackC@t) once changed her name to Darth Puke or something of that nature, and I went ballistic. Fortunately, she changed it to BlackC@. whew.

Liberals had their time, in the 70's and in the 90's.

Originally posted by Eis
70's? Nixon, Ford and Carter? Haha... No.

congress?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020919-1.html

Q Mr. President, are you going to send Congress your proposed resolution today? And are you asking for a blank check, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: I am sending suggested language for a resolution. I want -- I've asked for Congress' support to enable the administration to keep the peace. And we look forward to a good, constructive debate in Congress. I appreciate the fact that the leadership recognizes we've got to move before the elections. I appreciate the strong support we're getting from both Republicans and Democrats, and look forward to working with them.

Q Mr. President, how important is it that that resolution give you an authorization of the use of force?

THE PRESIDENT: That will be part of the resolution, the authorization to use force. If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. But it's -- this will be -- this is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about.

[translation: yes i am asking for a blank check]

Originally posted by PVS
we are governed by special interests. its all corrupt. only oil is worse, since its dangerous and leads to tens of thousands dead per year and potentially global warming. its all corrupt though. all of it. to paint one side as a saint is incredibly naive.

I did not paint the Democrats as saints. They are simply less corrupt than the Republicans. Their policies are less destructive to America and the environment. I will take lying under oath about consensual sex v. destroying the planet anyday.

The Democrats do care more for the average American than the Republicans because they have too. They don't have oil company money to rely on.

Originally posted by docb77
congress?

Originally posted by Madacapa
I did not paint the Democrats as saints. They are simply less corrupt than the Republicans. Their policies are less destructive to America and the environment. I will take lying under oath about consensual sex v. destroying the planet anyday.

The Democrats do care more for the average American than the Republicans because they have too. They don't have oil company money to rely on.

No, they do have the drug companies though, and labor unions, and george soros, let's not forget money from outside the US. Yeah they're really forced to rely on the people. 🙄

By the way, the drug companies are making more money than the oil companies. Look it up on Forbes.

regardless, as i said (and agree in part as you can see by reading back) the problem with oil as a special interest is that it not only leads to deliberate fixing of intelligence pertaining to oil-rich countries who do not play ball, along with the casual turning away from connections between saudi arabia and funding for 9/11, its also preventing us from advancing in alternative fuel and technologies related to. sure bush will give the electric car rhetoric with every campaign speech and state of the union address, but the fact stands that he has nothing to face but profit loss and alienated sponsors if he follows through, so its all just lip service

reminds me of vito corleone hypocritically yet truthfully saying "drugs are a dangerous business". some forms of corruption and crime against the people, however evil, are less destructive than others.

Originally posted by PVS
regardless, as i said (and agree in part as you can see by reading back) the problem with oil as a special interest is that it not only leads to deliberate fixing of intelligence pertaining to oil-rich countries who do not play ball, along with the casual turning away from connections between saudi arabia and funding for 9/11, its also preventing us from advancing in alternative fuel and technologies related to. sure bush will give the electric car rhetoric with every campaign speech and state of the union address, but the fact stands that he has nothing to face but profit loss and alienated sponsors if he follows through, so its all just lip service

reminds me of vito corleone hypocritically yet truthfully saying "drugs are a dangerous business". some forms of corruption and crime against the people, however evil, are less destructive than others.

Well, he might not have anything to gain monetarily, but there is the almighty "legacy".

Originally posted by Madacapa
I did not paint the Democrats as saints. They are simply less corrupt than the Republicans. Their policies are less destructive to America and the environment. I will take lying under oath about consensual sex v. destroying the planet anyday.

The Democrats do care more for the average American than the Republicans because they have too. They don't have oil company money to rely on.

LOL you make me laugh, LOL.

if Pro is good and Con is bad does that mean Congress is the opposite of Progress?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
!!!WRONG!!! thumbsup

Wrong is right. You keep saying the democrats voted to go to war, all they did was vote to give the President the authority to load the gun, not to fire it. That's a power the president has always had on his own. There is a difference.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Wrong is right. You keep saying the democrats voted to go to war, all they did was vote to give the President the authority to load the gun, not to fire it. That's a power the president has always had on his own. There is a difference.

Funny, I could have sworn it was an authorization to use force, not just to prepare it.

Originally posted by docb77
Funny, I could have sworn it was an authorization to use force, not just to prepare it.

It authorized him to use force in he couldn't find a reason not to after consulting the United Nations Security Council. He simply ignored their input and constant protests. That's what began the debate in this country about the relevance of the UN in modern world politics. It wasn't a free ticket to do whatever he wanted, he just acted like it was and sold it to the American people.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
It wasn't a free ticket to do whatever he wanted,

actually, it kinda was. it was congress' way of shrugging off all responsibility and allowing bush to declare war. it was a blank check, proving their complete lack of function.

Originally posted by PVS
actually, it kinda was. it was congress' way of shrugging off all responsibility and allowing bush to declare war. it was a blank check, proving their complete lack of function.

It was certainly treated that way. But it wasn't worded that way.

fools. all of you. ignorant fools
HAAHAHHAHAHAAH. YOUR TIME WILL COME

dont let him hijack yet another thread. just ignore him

edit.

You're right.

Justice without force is powerless, force without justice is tyranny.

Originally posted by PVS
dont let him hijack yet another thread. just ignore him

thats ****ing rich, coming from you boy. dont let me dig up the amount of threads you have hi jacked. sleep it off