Now its the Republicans that just dont get it

I know it didn't happen overnight Dix. I know that histrocally its been a hole hell of a shit box. I know that there has never ever been any meaningful stability over there.

I also know that bombing them and occupying them while praying that a notional election will solve everything was retarded. I also know that Israel has nukes, and now every country in the middle east is feeling the sweat of this war. This is not the kind of thing that repairs itself.

The drums are beating about Iran, the pressure is mounting, and now, there is a more galvanized threat to the US from the middle east than there ever was before.

We can't solve every problem by blowing it up or making it vote Dix. There is no universal solution that we can muster through our might. It is akin to turning water into wine.

You feel free to shed as much blood on this cluster fuck as you wish. But don't feign surprise and indignation when the more reasonable among us call for this shit to stop.
 
I know it didn't happen overnight Dix. I know that histrocally its been a hole hell of a shit box. I know that there has never ever been any meaningful stability over there.

You also know Democracy has never been tried over there, and you also know of few wars in history between any two true democracies. You understand, historically, democracies don't war with each other, they trade and ally. These are things you also know, but have conveniently forgotten.

I also know that bombing them and occupying them while praying that a notional election will solve everything was retarded.

Let's get something straight, we didn't bomb "them", we bombed the people with an iron-fisted grip on "them" to allow "them" to develop a democratic government, which they are doing. No one needs to pray that democracy will work, people need to be patient, stand back, and allow democracy to work.

I also know that Israel has nukes, and now every country in the middle east is feeling the sweat of this war.

For all intents and purposes, Israel is the U.S. Military-Lite. They have been since 1948, when they were founded as a nation by the UN. I am sorry you hate Israel so much and have such deep seeded anti-Semitism in you, but that is a fact of life you need to get used to at your age, and stop this baby-like moaning about Israel. The people "feeling the sweat" of this war, are the people fighting this war, no one else. I'm sure our allies in the middle east are wondering if we are going to bail on them, and in that regard, there might be some sweating going on.

This is not the kind of thing that repairs itself.

No fucking shit? Really? Well then how the hell is YOUR solution going to work? It seems you want to withdraw from the region and mind our own business, so if this kind of thing doesn't fix itself, and we aren't going to fix it, how do you suppose it will ever get fixed?

The drums are beating about Iran, the pressure is mounting, and now, there is a more galvanized threat to the US from the middle east than there ever was before.

No, not really. There is a fairly substantial split between radicals and moderates in the middle east, you only pay attention to the radicals. Iran is going to have to be dealt with... again, the shithole analogy... you can't just stand there looking in the hole bitching about the shit, there is only one solution to clean it up, and it requires getting some shit on your hands, unfortunately. Iran isn't going to "fix itself" either! WE are going to have to fix Iran, because WE are the only ones on the planet capable of fixing Iran. If it becomes too much for you, maybe you can stick your head in the sand somewhere, until it's over, but that is the reality of the world we live in.

We can't solve every problem by blowing it up or making it vote Dix.

We can solve a hell of a lot of them that way.... and hey... they won't solve themselves, as you've already admitted. Why not give democracy a chance, and see? What the hell can it hurt to try something new? It's better than sticking your head in the sand, if you ask me.

There is no universal solution that we can muster through our might. It is akin to turning water into wine.

Yes, there is a universal solution to MOST of the problems, promote peace and democracy. If we can accomplish those two things, most of the other problems will dissipate and evaporate with time. We will never solve 100% of the problems, that is just silly and unreasonable, but fostering an environment where the people control their own destiny and are able to pull themselves out of their adverse circumstances, is not something to be blown off and ridiculed as "retarded" at all.

You feel free to shed as much blood on this cluster fuck as you wish. But don't feign surprise and indignation when the more reasonable among us call for this shit to stop.

You're not reasonable, you haven't been reasonable, and you don't plan to be reasonable. You want to continue being as unreasonable and defiant as you can be, and you have no intentions of being anything else. Let's just be honest about that. You've been calling for this shit to stop for 5 years, and you'll still be calling for it to stop in another 5 years, and nothing is going to penetrate your thick head and make you understand anything any differently.

Day after day, I hear the incessant bleating from the pinheads, about the deaths in Iraq, as if I just don't care about it. I don't know why you think I don't care about young Americans dying in a foreign war, it's absurd and insulting to me. Maybe fewer of them would die, if you and the pinheads stopped fueling the insurgency with your anti-war gyrations??? Did you ever think about that? Nope, I doubt it!
 
Maybe fewer of them would die, if you and the pinheads stopped fueling the insurgency with your anti-war gyrations??? Did you ever think about that? Nope, I doubt it!

none of them would have had to die in Iraq in a campaign that only served to make us less safe and the world less safe if you and your koolaid soaked buttbuddies would have listened to the democrats and to the rest of the world.
 
none of them would have had to die in Iraq in a campaign that only served to make us less safe and the world less safe if....

If the 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry christmas.

You have no proof we are "less safe" than before, it's more of your typical knee-jerk liberalism talking. We've not been attacked since 9/11, and it's not been because they haven't tried. So go shut the fuck up, you admitted partisan koolaid drinker!

Who the hell do you rant for anyway? The pinheads have already heard your message, and people like myself don't fucking care! So who the hell are you talking to when you go off on one of these long-winded tirades about the administration? I once understood it, he was running for office, so all the mud you could throw, was about keeping people from voting for him, but now it makes no sense... what are you spending all this energy and time for? Those who support Bush are not listening, those who don't, agree with you and don't need to hear it. Is it just a cathartic thing for you? Are you mental? I'm sure you have a good explanation.
 
...would have listened to the democrats and to the rest of the world.

Oh really? And WHAT Democrats told us Saddam had no WMD's and was harmlessly contained? I have searched the archives of the Congressional record, and I don't see a single statement to that effect, so who the fuck are you talking about? Who in the WORLD told us that Saddam didn't have any WMD's? The UN Security Council passed a unanimous resolution denouncing his WMD's, so how the hell were they telling us he didn't have any?

You are so full of shit you have separated yourself from reality, and live in some sort of cosmic liberal shit bubble, floating above all our heads! You've heard people saying things they never said, you've talked to people that don't exist... you might need meds!
 
...would have listened to the democrats and to the rest of the world.

Oh really? And WHAT Democrats told us Saddam had no WMD's and was harmlessly contained? I have searched the archives of the Congressional record, and I don't see a single statement to that effect, so who the fuck are you talking about? Who in the WORLD told us that Saddam didn't have any WMD's? The UN Security Council passed a unanimous resolution denouncing his WMD's, so how the hell were they telling us he didn't have any?

You are so full of shit you have separated yourself from reality, and live in some sort of cosmic liberal shit bubble, floating above all our heads! You've heard people saying things they never said, you've talked to people that don't exist... you might need meds!

I am talking about the democrats who urged Bush to not rush into war with Iraq...to allow the inspectors time to find out what we now all know to be true: that the mission of disarming Saddam was done before a shot was fired.
 
none of them would have had to die in Iraq in a campaign that only served to make us less safe and the world less safe if....

If the 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry christmas.

You have no proof we are "less safe" than before, it's more of your typical knee-jerk liberalism talking. We've not been attacked since 9/11, and it's not been because they haven't tried. So go shut the fuck up, you admitted partisan koolaid drinker!

Who the hell do you rant for anyway? The pinheads have already heard your message, and people like myself don't fucking care! So who the hell are you talking to when you go off on one of these long-winded tirades about the administration? I once understood it, he was running for office, so all the mud you could throw, was about keeping people from voting for him, but now it makes no sense... what are you spending all this energy and time for? Those who support Bush are not listening, those who don't, agree with you and don't need to hear it. Is it just a cathartic thing for you? Are you mental? I'm sure you have a good explanation.

the more America smells Bush's skunk stench, the more it will infiltrate the trappings of your next nominee. The more America comes to realize just what an incredibly terrible mistake this war was and what an incredibly inept job Bush did in running it, the less likely they will be to want to put someone ELSE from the party of ineptitude back in the white house.

George Bush's failures may very well be a dead horse, but the more we beat on that dead horse, the worse he will smell and the worse your '08 candidate will smell by association. Every single one of your potential candidates has had his picture taken in a grin and grip photo op with Dubya.... rest assured, those photos will play a prominent role in the democrat's ad campaign.
 
the more it will infiltrate the trappings of your next nominee...the more we beat on that dead horse, the worse he will smell and the worse your '08 candidate will smell by association

So, we can automatically dismiss any candidate based on associations with another person... guess that puts Hillary to the back of the pack, huh? Hey, but that Obama Hussein guy... he hasn't been in Washington long enough to get his picture made with anyone, so he is in good shape!

I'm not sure I like your idea of how to pick a president, it seems there should be some emphasis on substance, or that perhaps we should evaluate their message, instead of focusing on who they had a picture made with. I can't imagine a majority of voting Americans would make their decision on something so shallow, but then... AlGore did win the popular vote, so who knows?

Good luck with your experiment in transference, it won't work for several reasons. First, not everyone hates Dubya as much as you do, some people actually like the guy, and like people who are associated with him and get their pictures made with him. Secondly, not everyone listens to washed up blowhard liberal elitists from Maine, and I wouldn't count on that to win, if I were the DNC. Thirdly, spending precious campaign time gossiping and trying to bluster up scandals and dirt, is growing old with the public. They really want to hear a mature and honest message, and they are really tired of blowhard liberal elitists trying to destroy people by destroying their character and reputation with rumors and allegations.

Your rants are not convincing anybody, those who agree with you already agree, and those who don't are never going to agree with you. It's not like Beefy is sitting on the fence trying to decide if he wants to go Republican or Democrat, and needs to be prodded by you, to vote for Hillary. It's not like Damo or klaatu are going to decide who to vote for, based on your incessant rants about Bush. Any fucking moron out there, who honestly doesn't know which way he/she will vote in 2008, is not going to listen to your rants and suddenly have a light bulb go on, and run out to vote for the Democrat, based on what you've said here.

The fact is, you are tarnishing no one but yourself. You are showing this entire board, you don't really care about issues, you don't really care about the problems, you just want to throw as much mud as possible, and get your guy elected to power. Screw ethics, as long as we can get a Democrat president!

It's interesting, you are going to try and defeat someone by associating them with Bush... you couldn't even defeat Bush by associating him with Bush!
 
I am talking about the democrats who urged Bush to not rush into war with Iraq...to allow the inspectors time to find out what we now all know to be true: that the mission of disarming Saddam was done before a shot was fired.

Fair enough, where are these Democrats who urged Bush? Name them! I want to go look up their words myself! For the record, this will be the second time I've requested their names in this thread, and I predict it will be the second time I am not given any names. The fact is, every leading Democrat was saying just the opposite of what you claim, and did give the president the authority to use military force in Iraq. No one was urging him to let the inspectors work, no one was yammering about Saddam not having WMD's, none of that started until after the war began.
 
No... "another way" of allowing parents to have a choice in their childs Education....fact is Liberal Policy has been running the Education Asylum since the early 60's .... so when a liberal pundit begins a rant on how terrible our system is when compared to Europe and Japan .... the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of American Liberal Policy....

A way which routes tax dollars to the private sector.

I support people getting back all school taxes THEY pay a year back for a "voucher" system. I just dont want them getting someone elses school taxes to route to the private sector.
 
A way which routes tax dollars to the private sector.

I support people getting back all school taxes THEY pay a year back for a "voucher" system. I just dont want them getting someone elses school taxes to route to the private sector.


You do realize, most people pay a school tax through taxation of their personal property, and most poor people pay $0 in school taxes per year, right? The tax revenue for schools is generated through the private sector, so what is your problem with returning the money to the private sector? Do you assume government can do more with the funds than the private sector? That's fine, if that's what you think, but don't you think you should have something to back it up? Some evidence of a government program which works better under governmental control than in the private sector?

It sounds like, you just don't want the rich kids to spend the poor kids school money... but the poor kids aren't paying anything! With vouchers, the poor kids get money to spend in the private sector they normally wouldn't have. The rich kids simply get to count the money they currently waste in school taxes, toward their own educational expenses. But the biggest attraction to a voucher system, is the introduction of market competition. When schools have to compete for your voucher money, the quality of education they provide your children, will rise... if it doesn't, the school goes out of business, and another, better more efficient school, takes their place. Now... boo hoo for the lazy-ass liberal teacher's union scum who are getting a tenured free ride on the backs of the taxpayer, they will have to find some other way to get paid for doing nothing.
 
I am talking about the democrats who urged Bush to not rush into war with Iraq...to allow the inspectors time to find out what we now all know to be true: that the mission of disarming Saddam was done before a shot was fired.

Fair enough, where are these Democrats who urged Bush? Name them! I want to go look up their words myself! For the record, this will be the second time I've requested their names in this thread, and I predict it will be the second time I am not given any names. The fact is, every leading Democrat was saying just the opposite of what you claim, and did give the president the authority to use military force in Iraq. No one was urging him to let the inspectors work, no one was yammering about Saddam not having WMD's, none of that started until after the war began.

http://www.feingold.senate.gov/speeches/02/09/2002927444.html
 
Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Bob Graham (D-FL)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
 
Neil Abercrombie
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Tammy Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Earl Blumenauer
Bonior
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Lois Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Elijah Cummings
Davis (CA)
Danny K. Davis (D-IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)
E.B. Johnson
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH 10th)
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Jim Moran (D-VA 8th)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Ron Paul (R-TX 14th)
Payne
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 8th)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Wu
 
allow me to add to MM's comprehensive list:


-DIXIE, October 2002: "WMD! Nukes! Iraqi ties to al qaeda! WAR! WAR! WAR!"


-Barack Obama, now a United States senator, September 2002: “I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”

-Al Gore, September 2002: “I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century.”

Representative Nancy Pelosi, now the House speaker-elect, October 2002: “When we go in, the occupation, which is now being called the liberation, could be interminable and the amount of money it costs could be unlimited.”

Senator Russ Feingold, October 2002: “I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. … When the administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the administration’s motives.”

Howard Dean, then a candidate for president and now the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, February 2003: “I firmly believe that the president is focusing our diplomats, our military, our intelligence agencies, and even our people on the wrong war, at the wrong time. … Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.”
 
Back
Top