Dems next move

[uscitizen]

So what do you guys want to do about "radical" islamic terrorism? It is true that if we don't fight them there, we will fight them here. I prefer to not let them come here, via radical immigration reform which will disallow immigrants from theocratic nations, who think in that mode and are hostile to religious freedom. Would you guys be against that?

Just check out all immigrants. Bush is wanting to bring thousands of Iraqi over here, it is already in place I think. And being expedited.

Yeha yeah fight em there or in Macys shoe dept, same old song....

 

[Cypress]

Then end it. Do as Darla suggests. Cut the funding with the exception of providing transport home. Explain the case to the public and DO IT.

I think the Dems want this to drag out as well. They want this to be a 2008 election issue. They do not want to make their stand until next year.... or at least that is the way it appears to me.

The problem with that, is they don't have the votes.

And the other problem, is that I don't have a single doubt in my mind that if funds were immediatly and completely cut off, bush would let american troops die to score political points. He'd either drag his feet withdrawing them, or leave them over there underequiped - in either case, more of them get killed. And then bush will say: "See? Democrats left our troops in the field to die".

He's spend six years using our troops as props, and letting them die for unneccessary wars.

And I'm not a leftwing conspiracy nut for saying this. Socretease over on the other board thinks bush would let troops stay in iraq underequiped and die, to make a political point.


I think, perhaps, a more realistic way is to simply revoke bush's war power authorities. He was not granted authority to babysit a civil war. They can just revoke the 2002 resolution.

 

[Cancel7]

Darla..."And on the dems part because they know it's lost, and they know how to stop it, have the power to stop it, and won't do it for political reasons."

I agree 100% with the above.

"It might bite them in the ass. But people do respect those who stand up for what they believe, and won't back down. They can make the case, and then let the chips fall where they may. It's not certain how it would turn out yet."

To be clear... I mean the non-binding resolutions for a timeline over and over again would bite them in the ass. IF they were to stop funding and take a stand, that is a different story entirely. I think that would actually benefit them. I just don't think they want to do it until mid-2008.

Because nobody can know the short-term repercussions of a complete withdrawal, and some of them are bound to be bad. That is going to happen no matter when we pull out, and as far as I'm concerned is on the heads of mainly bush and cheney, but also anyone who knew better in their heart of hearts, but went along anyway, and that includes a lot of Congress. But politically, the dems could then be held responsible for these repercussions, and I think they want more Republican support on it, and they are going to get that, but not until the end of this year. So don't try and give Republicans a pass SF, because there is a shitload of them who are going to vote to get us out of Iraq, and soon, but they're holding off as well. In both cases, it is morally indefensible.

 

[Cancel7]

The problem with that, is they don't have the votes.

And the other problem, is that I don't have a single doubt in my mind that if funds were immediatly and completely cut off, bush would let american troops die to score political points. He'd either drag his feet withdrawing them, or leave them over there underequiped - in either case, more of them get killed. And then bush will say: "See? Democrats left our troops in the field to die".

He's spend six years using our troops as props, and letting them die for unneccessary wars.

And I'm not a leftwing conspiracy nut for saying this. Socretease over on the other board thinks bush would let troops stay in iraq underequiped and die, to make a political point.


I think, perhaps, a more realistic way is to simply revoke bush's war power authorities. He was not granted authority to babysit a civil war. They can just revoke the 2002 resolution.

You know Cypress, there was a lot of talk of revoking that, and some pundits said they thought that Webb might introduce that bill, also I saw Biden talk about it. I wonder why it was never done? It's a damned good idea, I don't know why it was dropped.

 

[Cypress]

You know Cypress, there was a lot of talk of revoking that, and some pundits said they thought that Webb might introduce that bill, also I saw Biden talk about it. I wonder why it was never done? It's a damned good idea, I don't know why it was dropped.

I think I just heard that Feingold and Reid are going to co-sponsor a bill revoking Bush's war powers authority under the 2002 resolution. But, I'm not sure of the details.

Maybe this is what makes the most sense. Simple tell bush: Hey dude, you're constitutional right to wage war is over. Start withdrawing. NOW. We'll keep funding the troops as they withdraw.

 

[Cancel7]

I think I just heard that Feingold and Reid are going to co-sponsor a bill revoking Bush's war powers authority under the 2002 resolution. But, I'm not sure of the details.

Maybe this is what makes the most sense. Simple tell bush: Hey dude, you're constitutional right to wage war is over. Start withdrawing. NOW. We'll keep funding the troops as they withdraw.

I hope they do it, and I agree it makes sense.

 

[Cypress]

I hope they do it, and I agree it makes sense.

I think Congress revoked the Gulf of Tonkin war powers resolution around 1971. Effectively ending the role of american ground combat forces in Vietnam.

Of course Nixon kept using air power, and bombing, until 1973.

 

[uscitizen]

Take our hits and leave while putting UN border security in place.

I knew this would happen and I am not sure there is any way out until we bankrupt our nation trying to hold onto oil land in the middle east.
Other than to just pull out.

Perhaps the terrorists will only hit republican conventions and such anyway...

 

[Litmus]

Just check out all immigrants. Bush is wanting to bring thousands of Iraqi over here, it is already in place I think. And being expedited.

Yeha yeah fight em there or in Macys shoe dept, same old song....

So you have no problem with the imporation of islamic radicals?

 

[uscitizen]

Radicals of any type yes. but no problem with islamic folks in general.

Ask the bushies why they want to immigrate thousands of Iraqi folks though.
I would love to deport several "Christian" radicals.
Falwell, Robertson, and that nut that protests at funerals, I forget his name...

 

[Litmus]

Radicals of any type yes. but no problem with islamic folks in general.

Ask the bushies why they want to immigrate thousands of Iraqi folks though.
I would love to deport several "Christian" radicals.
Falwell, Robertson, and that nut that protests at funerals, I forget his name...

Would you want to deport any of the newly imported muslims if they were found to be radical?

 

[LadyT]

Morally, they should cut off funding, today. Get on television and explain to the masses, that they will fully fund safe troop withdrawal.

Politically, bush has now done the dems the great favor of keeping sole ownership of this war, and the dems are going to have all three branches come 08. If they cut funding, there are political risks, which they won't take. I would, but they won't. So a lot more people are going to die, and the dems are going to gain further majorities in the house, senate, and take the white house.

I'm with you, I would. And personally if they cave, I think it makes them look weak. Why is it that they are the one's always willing to compromise, even when they should be sticking by their guns, IMO.

 

[LadyT]

So you have no problem with the imporation of islamic radicals?

I know I wouldn't have a problem with the deportation of nationalist radicals like yourself

 

[LadyT]

"That said, I'm not sure how realistic it is, to keep sending bush the same bill over and over. Just tossed it out as an idea"

Well, in my opinion, if you really want to piss off the public... go with it. Because I think that is all you will accomplish. The Reps would bury you with it.

I disagree. I think they full public support except for the hard core apologists which will never let go of their loyalty to chimp.

 

[LadyT]

I think I just heard that Feingold and Reid are going to co-sponsor a bill revoking Bush's war powers authority under the 2002 resolution. But, I'm not sure of the details.

Maybe this is what makes the most sense. Simple tell bush: Hey dude, you're constitutional right to wage war is over. Start withdrawing. NOW. We'll keep funding the troops as they withdraw.

That would kick ass.

 

[Litmus]

I know I wouldn't have a problem with the deportation of nationalist radicals like yourself

You know that the concept of being a "world citizen" is just a construct invented by jews to get americans to act against their own best interests, don't you? They're all about securing their homeland.

 

[uscitizen]

The "world citizen" is a business driven concept. Not a religious one.

And yes I would be for the deportation of any radicals that prove to be a danger to us.
Including all the neocons

 

[Litmus]

The "world citizen" is a business driven concept. Not a religious one.

And yes I would be for the deportation of any radicals that prove to be a danger to us.
Including all the neocons

It's a business/politics/academia construct. It's called globalism or internationalism. There is a spiritual component to it called "New Age". It's all about a new global spiritual order. This will be the new church of the antichrist. Google NOAHIDISM as well to learn the jewish connection.

tell me where the rainbow, seen on gay cars, comes from.

 

[LadyT]

You know that the concept of being a "world citizen" is just a construct invented by jews to get americans to act against their own best interests, don't you? They're all about securing their homeland.

Of course I do. Who doesn't?

 

[LadyT]

It's a business/politics/academia construct. It's called globalism or internationalism. There is a spiritual component to it called "New Age". It's all about a new global spiritual order. This will be the new church of the antichrist. Google NOAHIDISM as well to learn the jewish connection.

tell me where the rainbow, seen on gay cars, comes from.

Were you raised this way? Or were your parents normal and somehow you ended up a Klan rally one day?

I'm bored of the Jewish conspiracies. Tell how much dislike the negros.