Bush gets it right

[idrankwhat 0]

  Quote

And I said that Congress would be responsible since they added pork to the military spending bill that they KNEW he would veto since he TOLD them.

For the record, Bush wasn't going to veto for the pork. He doesn't do that. It cracks me up to hear Republicans/Conservatives/Bush apologists what ever bitch about pork. You'd think they'd be proud that the Dems aren't nearly as good at porking out bills as the Cons are
But indeed, whether it's a slice of bacon or a full on Carolina BBQ, it is still pork

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

The veto of this particular bill IS Bush's sole responsibility.

You keep telling yourself that...But that does not make it true. If congress really wanted to support the troope they would not have included a timeline into the bill. They are playing politics (normal) but I thought you smarter than buying into the retoric.

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

For the record, Bush wasn't going to veto for the pork

Total BS.

  Quote

It cracks me up to hear Republicans/Conservatives/Bush apologists what ever bitch about pork.

What cracks me up is YOU have been attacking the Reb pork for quite some time, NOW you love it. For me I think "attachments" are plain BS and have always felt that way. You are only happy since it is your party doing it now.

[billvon 3,067]

>You keep telling yourself that...But that does not make it true.

It is not true that Bush is responsible for what he signs?

Hmm. Perhaps you're on to something here. Scooter Libby was not responsible for his perjury - someone else made him lie! Osama Bin Laden was not responsible for 9/11 - it was the 'anti-muslim' US that forced him to do it! Haggard was not responsible for doing meth; he was forced to do so by his religion's closeted stance on drug usage. It wasn't Foley's fault that he sent explicit emails to his pages. They were just too darn cute.

Cool. No one is responsible for anything they do if there is at least one other person who can be plausibly blamed. This new stance will make the Bush apologist's jobs a LOT easier. We can call this new angle "bringing nonaccountability back to the White House."

[idrankwhat 0]

  Quote

  Quote

For the record, Bush wasn't going to veto for the pork

Total BS.

  Quote

It cracks me up to hear Republicans/Conservatives/Bush apologists what ever bitch about pork.

What cracks me up is YOU have been attacking the Reb pork for quite some time, NOW you love it. For me I think "attachments" are plain BS and have always felt that way. You are only happy since it is your party doing it now.

First off, name one spending bill that Bush vetoed.
Secondly, and sorry for the stern nature of this post, but go back and friggin' read my post instead of responding to what you wish I had written. You're arguing with yourself, not me....as usual.

[akarunway 1]

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

For the record, Bush wasn't going to veto for the pork

Total BS.

  Quote

It cracks me up to hear Republicans/Conservatives/Bush apologists what ever bitch about pork.

What cracks me up is YOU have been attacking the Reb pork for quite some time, NOW you love it. For me I think "attachments" are plain BS and have always felt that way. You are only happy since it is your party doing it now.

I think tey are called "SIGNING STATMENTS". But what do I know

First off, name one spending bill that Bush vetoed.
Secondly, and sorry for the stern nature of this post, but go back and friggin' read my post instead of responding to what you wish I had written. You're arguing with yourself, not me....as usual.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

Cool. No one is responsible for anything they do if there is at least one other person who can be plausibly blamed. This new stance will make the Bush apologist's jobs a LOT easier. We can call this new angle "bringing nonaccountability back to the White House."

Your rants are getting more pathetic.

If you can't see that Congress tacked on the withdraw deadline just so they could claim he does not support the troops (just like you are claiming) and gain political capital there really is no point in discussing this.

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

Secondly, and sorry for the stern nature of this post, but go back and friggin' read my post instead of responding to what you wish I had written. You're arguing with yourself, not me....as usual.

And as usual you are trying to dodge what you said.
You said you find it funny that "apologists" are bitching about pork. I bitched about pork no matter what party, you seem to support it if it is from "your" party.

[idrankwhat 0]

  Quote

  Quote

Secondly, and sorry for the stern nature of this post, but go back and friggin' read my post instead of responding to what you wish I had written. You're arguing with yourself, not me....as usual.

And as usual you are trying to dodge what you said.
You said you find it funny that "apologists" are bitching about pork. I bitched about pork no matter what party, you seem to support it if it is from "your" party.

Fuck. This is worse than trying to get a cat to look at where you're pointing. They just keep looking at the end of your finger. Ok kitty kitty, here's what I said"

"But indeed, whether it's a slice of bacon or a full on Carolina BBQ, it is still pork"

You just seem to have trouble reading past the part where I was happily pointing out that the Republicans systematically and completely pissed away any notion that they were a party of fiscal responsibility. If that ticks you off, it should, but it's no reason to paste the typical "you think it's ok because your party does it" that you obviously keep on your clipboard.

[ExAFO 0]

"Marzipan."

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[idrankwhat 0]

  Quote

"Marzipan."

Call BR-549

[billvon 3,067]

>If you can't see that Congress tacked on the withdraw deadline just
>so they could claim he does not support the troops . . .

No, they made the withdrawal a central part of the bill BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY WERE ELECTED TO DO. Deciding policy is THEIR JOB. The previous pro-war congress got the boot primarily because they had royally screwed the pooch, and "same old same old" wasn't cutting it any more. Which is why there was a landslide that cost the GOP both houses.

Now the new congress is finally growing some balls and setting policy. They're saying there has to be a deadline, and they are including that deadline in the legislation they pass, as the public is demanding. They want to keep their jobs, and they know that the way to do that is to represent the people who elected them.

Bush now faces a choice - sign the bill and get funding, or don't sign the bill and withdraw very rapidly when we run out of money. His "support the troops!" line is going to come back and bite him in the butt, because it's going to be pretty clear to everyone who wants money for the troops and who doesn't.

From my perspective it doesn't really matter what he does, although I think it will be better for the Iraqis if he signs it. In both cases we get out of Iraq, which will do more good for our troops than any amount of money we send there.

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

This is worse than trying to get a cat to look at where you're pointing. They just keep looking at the end of your finger. Ok kitty kitty, here's what I said"

Nice, can't debate so you start tying to make insults. Not my fault you cannot communicate well.

  Quote

You just seem to have trouble reading past the part where I was happily pointing out that the Republicans systematically and completely pissed away any notion that they were a party of fiscal responsibility

Nope I saw it, you just glaze over the fact you seem quite happy when your party does it.

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

No, they made the withdrawal a central part of the bill BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY WERE ELECTED TO DO. Deciding policy is THEIR JOB.

I have no issue with that statement. YOU however are claiming that if Bush does not agree then he does not support the troops. Which is BS and most can see right through it. I tried to give you an example, but you choose to ignore it. (Clinton and the Min wage bill).

Facts are that Bush will most likely veto this bill DUE to the withdraw timelines. But the other fact is that Congress attached the withdraw timelines KNOWING that Bush would veto it. Just so they and people like you could make the BS claims you are now making.

The reverse could be said and would also be just as true. Congress only cares about getting what they want and are willing to not fund the troops if that is what it takes.

If Congress really wanted to support the troops they would have passed a withdraw bill that was seperate from the funding bill. Then they could have claimed they tried to do their jobs, and could still blame Bush. But you and them want to slam Bush, so it is more fun to claim he does not support the troops.

Really, I am amazed you even arge that point. Stop listening to "Air America" so much.

[idrankwhat 0]

  Quote

Nice, can't debate so you start tying to make insults. Not my fault you cannot communicate well.


Nope I saw it, you just glaze over the fact you seem quite happy when your party does it.

I just don't know how to reply to you anymore. You need help.

[narcimund 0]

  Quote

I have no issue with that statement. YOU however are claiming that if Bush does not agree then he does not support the troops

Bush does NOT support the troops. Bush supports his personal war and the troops are the pawns he sacrifices to wage it.

They're also the pawns he sacrifices to wage political war.

Of course they're all volunteers so I don't feel to bad for them, but it's incredibly naive to think Bush actually gives a shit about them -- either individually or collectively.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

I just don't know how to reply to you anymore. You need help.

Again, can't play nice, so you make attacks...is this grade three? You might need help, try to talk again in grade six.

[DaVinci 0]

50% correct, lets make it 100%

  Quote

Bush Politicians do NOT support the troops. Bush Politicians support personal war and the troops are the pawns (t)he(y) sacrifice to wage it.

They're also the pawns (t)he(y) sacrifice to wage political war.

Of course they're all volunteers so I don't feel to bad for them, but it's incredibly naive to think Bush Politicians actually give a shit about them -- either individually or collectively.

I find it amazing that some think that Congress gives a shit, they could have supplied the troops and then passed a bill to pull the troops back. But they instead choose a path that they KNEW he would veto so he would look bad.

[idrankwhat 0]

  Quote

  Quote

I just don't know how to reply to you anymore. You need help.

Again, can't play nice, so you make attacks...is this grade three? You might need help, try to talk again in grade six.

That wasn't an attack. It was a honest recommendation. Deliberately editing out the part of my statement that debunks your argument is poor form for SC. It might get you a job heading up the EPA but it won't fly here.

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

That wasn't an attack

Sure it was, man up and admit when you make them.

  Quote

Deliberately editing out the part of my statement that debunks your argument is poor form for SC

So are attacks.

  Quote

It might get you a job heading up the EPA but it won't fly here.

Please , what do you think this is?!?!?!? It is a subsect of a skydiving website. If you think this is really that important, than I am not the one that needs help.

[idrankwhat 0]

  Quote

Please , what do you think this is?!?!?!? It is a subsect of a skydiving website. If you think this is really that important, than I am not the one that needs help.

Maybe so, but it's a great forum for discussion because when someone posts bullshit without including a little smiley emoticon they're called on it, typically with valid references to back it up. Sorry if I assumed too much when I expect just a little honesty from people when they're making an argument. If you want to talk crap and not get called on it, get elected to public office and hold a press conference.
As for personal attacks, sorry but this is the best I can do:
http://www.moviewavs.com/php/sounds/?id=bst&media=WAVS&type=Movies&movie=Toy_Story"e=sad.txt&file=sad.wav

[Amazon 7]

  Quote

If you want to talk crap and not get called on it, get elected to public office and hold a press conference.
As for personal attacks, sorry but this is the best I can do:

But but but..its ok if a fascist rightie is making the personal attacks.. then whines incessantly about it if anything they dont want to hear is made.. hell there are several of them that love to stalk me and follow me around from forum to forum... and try to make snide comments... so its best not to play thier game of getting you banned.. be very careful... because its far to easy to get banned for making a personal attack when just argueing with these disingenuous fucknuts.

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

Maybe so, but it's a great forum for discussion because when someone posts bullshit without including a little smiley emoticon they're called on it, typically with valid references to back it up

Too bad for you there is not a little attack guy smiley. Don't get upset you get called on those either.

  Quote

Sorry if I assumed too much when I expect just a little honesty from people when they're making an argument.

Then try BEING honest first. You made a claim, then danced around it and started making attacks. In fact that is all you have done for the last 4ish posts. Does not seem to me that you care about discussion, only getting your way. There is a difference.

  Quote

As for personal attacks, sorry but this is the best I can do:

Nonsense, you are doing just fine! Now just admit you do it and then we can move on like adults. If you can't man up and admit you make them, don't expect me to bother replying....I can get insulted by any grade three student.

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

But but but..its ok if a fascist rightie is making the personal attacks.. then whines incessantly about it if anything they dont want to hear is made.. hell there are several of them that love to stalk me and follow me around from forum to forum... and try to make snide comments... so its best not to play thier game of getting you banned.. be very careful... because its far to easy to get banned for making a personal attack when just argueing with these disingenuous fucknuts.

Wow you can't even hide the attacks anymore.

[billvon 3,067]

Both of you cut it out. And yes, Jeanie, "these disingenuous fucknuts" is a PA.