Pelosi warns Bush: ‘Calm down with the threats.’
Pelosi warns Bush: ‘Calm down with the threats.’
President Bush today renewed his threat to veto legislation that sets a time line for withdrawal from Iraq. In a press conference, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) responded:
Calm down with the threats. There is a new Congress in town. We respect your constitutional role; we want you to respect ours. This war must end. The American people have lost faith in the President’s conduct of the war. Let’s see how we can work together. This war is diminishing the strength of our military, not honoring our commitment to our veterans, and not holding the Iraqi government accountable.
President Bush now wants the debate to be about whether Congress will “fund the troops.” But both Senate and House bills provide the funds he requested. The real debate is whether Congress must endorse a war without end, and that is not an option.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
**SMACK!**
March 28th, 2007 at 7:36 pmYou tell him Pelosi. Let that little brat living in the White House know who’s in charge now.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:37 pm“Calm down” is exactly the right thing to say. A pretty good political instinct there.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:39 pmActually, Bush is in “charge” of vetoing and Pelosi is in “charge” of defunding (and impeaching).
March 28th, 2007 at 7:40 pmBush has to get everything he wants. But there is a time limit, he will then veto the bill. Let him explain that he decides there is no money for the troops because he is frustrated by the Dems!
March 28th, 2007 at 7:41 pmThis just gets better and better.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:42 pmIf they adjourn as planned, Bush can call a special session of Congress to consider a clean funding bill as well.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:43 pmWow. There’s some steely Margaret Thatcher in Dame Pelosi.
Very nice.
Betcha she’d kick W’s ass in a street-fight. She’d have his little punk ass running around in women’s underwear and crying for the Wahhhhmbulance!
March 28th, 2007 at 7:45 pmNice contrast in leadership styles.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:45 pmWhy George Bush is Insane
By Harold Pinter
http://www.rense.com/general75/whg.htm
March 28th, 2007 at 7:45 pmThen I will rephrase:
You tell him Pelosi. Let that little brat living in the White House know who’s the boss now.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:46 pm“We respect your constitutional role; we want you to respect ours.”
George Bush will not understand this sentence.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:47 pmDon’t worry, folks — Bush will “calmly” veto this if need be.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:48 pmI’ve got to hand it to Pelosi, she knows how to play the game in Bush’s court and serve him a sinker. She’s playing his game better than he does.
TIme will tell if her gambit will actually end with troop withdrawals, or will the Dems cave to pressure from AIPAC and neo-cons. THe money must be coming at these Dems fast and furious. It will take grit to resist. Bet they can’t.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:48 pmLet us not forget that Congress took out a wording in a bill that stated that Bush does not have to consult with Congress if he decides to go ahead and bomb Iran. So much for Congress telling Bush that he is not in charge of the government.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:56 pm“…The real debate is whether Congress must endorse a war without end, and that is not an option.”
Hey Nancy:
You condemned us to war without end when you supported removing the “Iran Provision” from the bill and made sure Shrub and Darth could decalre war on Iran without Congressional approval.
Our ships are conducting war exercises in the Persian Gulf; when do you plan to introdue your standalone bill that requires the WH to get approval from Congress before declaring war on Iran.
You promised it soon; would that be before or after nuclear warheads drop on Tehran?
March 28th, 2007 at 8:00 pm“Don’t worry, folks — Bush will “calmly†veto this if need be.
Comment by David — March 28, 2007 @ 7:48 pm”
Good…. Let him show America and the troops what he really thinks of them…..
He will show America that he pisses on the Troops, and they are just his little frogs that he can stick firecrackers up their butts and watch them explode as he wishes….
March 28th, 2007 at 8:03 pmThe media doesn’t seems to report all the extra garbage that the libs included in bill. All that special funding that has nothing to do with the war but probably lines the pockets of the vermin in the government!!!
March 28th, 2007 at 8:05 pmHe can do that, but then what?
He can’t make the Harry and Nancy pass a bill without a time limit. And the polls clearly show that the American people want this occupation to end. So if Bush tries to blame the Dems for not funding the troops after he vetoes the very bill that the Dems passed to fund the troops, people are going to laugh at him… I mean even more than they already are.
Personally, I think the Dems should just take whatever bill makes it to Bush’s and he vetoes, chop a month off all of the time periods and send it straight back to Bush. And repeat. Every time he vetoes, he loses a month.
And we really don’t even need a debate in Congress, we’ve already had that. The Dems should just put a new bill back on Bush’s desk the very day vetoes it.
I see absolutely no reason why the Dems should make any further concessions to the Worst President EvAr.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:05 pmWell, then, Bush can make sure they don’t leave Washington until CNN starts broadcasting U.S. troops with no ammo on the battlefield, having to fall back from the progress made during the surge. There are plenty of ways to skin a cat.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:11 pmWell said, Madame Speaker. Children need limits, particularly those prone to tantrums, and adults must supply them. Glad to see someone finally acknowledge this.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:11 pmWe have already had one of you retards list all of the so called pork and nothing in the list was out of line. You wanna post it, so we can rip your list apart?
Didn’t think so.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:12 pmWOW, GW Botch just can’t stop suckin’ more today than he sucked yesterday!!!
What complete and perfect blackhole in the universe!!
March 28th, 2007 at 8:13 pmShe put himin his place – and with such class. Daaaaamn…
March 28th, 2007 at 8:13 pmHow about the liberal vermin in the government introduce a bill that has funding for the war and the war only. Then introduce a separate bill that includes the garbage they included in the last bill. We will see what one passes then. It’s Pelosi and her cronies that are spitting on our soldiers! Pelosi and her cronies are spitting on our country! Liberalism is a mental disorder.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:16 pmSpudge (#22)
I agree most of the prok in the bill is for Katrina Relief and other necessary social spending but I take exception to $100 million for presidential conventions of 2008 ($50 million/party).
This money could have been better spent.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:17 pm18 – You mean all the work the republican’ts left un-done from the last congress, that had to be rolled into this bill so that any kind of progress at all could be made? Sorry, I shouldn’t have expected you to be able to respond to that, as you’re obviously someone who pays little to no attention to anything but sound-bites and photo-ops (and the ranting of some drug addict on the radio).
I didn’t just hop off the turnip truck, guy, and after 30 years of observing, I’m sure as hell familiar with the GOP playbook of petty procedural tricks, so why don’t you go try sounding not-stupid somewhere you might actually get away with it – try Tom DeLay’s blog.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:17 pmMissingit Man – you should check with your doctor.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:19 pmHow about “Go fu*k yourself”
March 28th, 2007 at 8:19 pmMarch 28th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
At least you are willing to state the fact that CNN is the second wing of the Bush propaganda machine.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:21 pmhysterical mouthbreather.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:21 pmDear nancy – enuf with the Calm down” rhetoric. Ms P- not a inch. Not one single inch to the liar. Remember- he will be the one withholding the funds. Not the Dems.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:23 pmI dunno. It makes crazy people act more nuts when you tell them to calm down.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:23 pmComment by David
He can’t keep them in Washington, sure “he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them,” so it isn’t like he can do it everyday. And only a couple of members need to show up and re-adjourn. Besides, the Dems are running the place and they really not in to taking long vacations at the moment, too much investigating needs to be done, see.
As for waiting for the ammo to run out. He’s gonna look awful silly making that claim if he’s just vetoed the funding bill. He’s got no leverage and his whining won’t help him.
Both a filibuster and veto will blow up in the Republican’s face, so if Bush was rational, he’d just calmly sign whatever bill Congress sends him, and start to figure out to manage the withdrawal.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:23 pmThat’s certainly been my experience and so I’m pretty Nancy carefully picked her words. hehehehe. And I bet our Child Emperor will overact as usual.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:28 pmGWB was bitch slapped again! He must be getting to like it since it is happening so often lately.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:28 pmyea michigan man…nice job on takin care of veterans…
How many people are maimed/killed/permanently disabled, that weren’t even soldiers, but worked for private companies profitting off of a ‘war’ that has nothing to do with terrorism?
770. You’re a moron…and liberalism fougth the Revolutionary War.
You’re either a really rich guy, or an uneducated fool. Wake up.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:28 pmHA HA HA! That’s alright. The republicans are destroying this country too just like the liberals have in the past and will continue to do so. I am tired of the republican garbage, but they’re not in power any more. If any of you think that Bush is GOP your kidding yourself. He’s more liberal than Pelosi is. He’s a better actor than what Regan was, and certainly is playing the country all too well. This country is in need of some serious help and it won’t come from the right or the left. Maybe it will come from China when they take us over since our government has taught our military to shoot kisses instead of bullets. If our soldiers hands we cut loose, we probably wouldn’t be there any more.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:29 pmI dunno. It makes crazy people act more nuts when you tell them to calm down.
Comment by OleHippieChick —
I don’t know about anyone else, but that’s usually my motive when I tell someone to calm down. :D
March 28th, 2007 at 8:30 pm#33 Bill, you got it! Let him talk.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:30 pmMichigan Man sez:
Umm….and why should they? Congress is a co-equal branch of government. They don’t have to write their legislation to please Chimpy. They don’t work for Chimpy, they work for us (as does Chimpy himself, although it’s obvious he doesn’t understand that).
You don’t really understand the roles of the different branches of government, do you? Do yourself a solid and go back to get that G.E.D. …it’s safer than letting Chimpy tell you what’s right and wrong.
If being able to think for yourself is a ‘mental disorder’, I’d rather stay ’sick’, thanks.
(P.S.: Please don’t type your entire post in boldface. It makes you look like an idiot, and it hurts our eyes.)
March 28th, 2007 at 8:30 pmMichigan Man bees all ova da place
March 28th, 2007 at 8:32 pmComment by Michigan Man — March 28, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
Did your pharmacist drop dead recently?
March 28th, 2007 at 8:33 pmMichigan Man sez:
OK…with that statement, you officially prove yourself too stupid to address. For god’s sake, sober up and take a civics class.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:33 pmMichigan Man is a piss-soaked troll.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:35 pmCofL, I think your point is quite pertinent.
A lot of the antiwar people are screaming right now that Pelosi has sold them out, and to a certain extent, she has, by removing the restrictions on invading Iran. However, I think this may be a better plan than these people recognize. When you consider the massive resistance to any change of course, which has been exhibited by the Beltway insiders and the media punditry, and when you consider the extent to which Bu$hco has been able to completely stifle open debate, this bill is not such a bad first step. If it breaks his veto, or even if it just succeeds in highlighting his dishonesty, it may prove to be quite useful.
Tom Englehardt has a new piece, Demobilizing America, which helps clarify just how far we have to go to reverse course in the Middle East. It is especially useful in that he was also involved in the antiwar protests during the Vietnam Era. From that vantage point, his analysis is useful to understand why the antiwar resistance has been so ineffective up to this point.
Btw, nice to see you back as your old self. The troll who stole your name caused quite a stir a couple of days ago.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:36 pmI like how your responses include personal name calling. I am entitled to think what I think as you are.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:39 pmActually, Bush is in “charge†of vetoing and Pelosi is in “charge†of defunding (and impeaching).
March 28th, 2007 at 8:39 pm—-
Actually Bush is only “in charge” of one thing: upholding and defending the Constitution. And since he has repeatedly violated his oath and shown scorn and contempt for the Constitution, he is only “in charge” in the way a bank robber is “in charge” of the bank he is robbing.
Michigan Man @ 18:
Do you realize that the previous Congress refused t pass a budget bill so tat they couls stick it to this Congress, don’t you? Do yo think that the national budget consists solely of military finances? Do you like to eat? If so, some of the farmers need bills passed. Do you like clothing? Ditto.
BTW – the only ones lining their pockets for the past 6+ years have been Bush and his cronies.
Learn to tell the freekin’ truth.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:43 pmPoor macho-boy George. It must be terrible failing at everything you do. Karma wins every time.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:43 pmOhhhn, it’s an antagonism thing. :-P
A clever woman indeed is the Herder of Cats.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:43 pmMichigan Man sez:
Excuse me, sunshine, but you were the one who used the phrase ‘liberal vermin’. If you’re gonna dish it out, you better not bitch when you’re dealt the same treatment in return.
And we’re entitled to point out the flaws in your ‘reasoning’ (and I use that word loosely). Deal with it.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:45 pmI listen to Weiner Savage too (I have very few options in my rural area) Michigan Man (though I can only stomach a few minutes at a time). You lifted those rants directly from Weiner Savage. I heard them too, and he is absolutely Crazy.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:47 pmHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
March 28th, 2007 at 8:49 pmWell you are all right and I am wrong. Thanks for shinning the light on my life. Now I can think like all of you. Yeah!
March 28th, 2007 at 8:51 pmJeebus, TP, why did you delete that post?
Folks, there is a very useful article over at Antiwar daht com by Tom Engelhardt called, Demobilizing America. If you want to have a broader picture of what is going on right now, you might want to take look. Sorry, but I’m not going to recreate three paragraphs of info.
Sometimes….
March 28th, 2007 at 8:52 pmnancy pelosi is a great leader,
repeat,
LEADER.
she, more than any other american political leader of these times,
has made things happen on iraq,
but not just on iraq.
let’s appreciate our good fortune as we watch her talents unfold to the benefit of our nation.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:53 pmOkay, David (Jake), where is the “battlefield” in Iraq? (you know the one where the soldiers without bullets will be filmed by CNN?).
Get this through your seemingly thick neocon scull: The nominal “president” of the US has been told by Congress when the war will end – it is their prerogative to do so. If a commander in cheif keeps his troops in the field (or in the theater) without provisions, he must assume they have what they need to get the job done, or he must withdraw them – the choice is his alone. Choosing the former over the latter would be HIS decision with foreknowledge of what will happen to them. He could always choose to fund them himself.
You and your ilk have nothing left to defend. Your leader is corrupt to the point of criminality. The straw mwn don’t work anymore. Your opinions are held by a rapidly diminishing minority (those who were bad judges of character at the outset, and who have since learned by repeated demonstrations of incompetence that the guy they entrusted with their country have already jumped ship), and that minority looks ever more foolish each time someone like you posts their childish, ignorant bullshit.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:55 pmOkay, David (Jake)…
Comment by Jake
Ok, I’m confused….
March 28th, 2007 at 9:00 pmThis is some kind of amazing…Engelhardt’s article is not so easy to find. Try this:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=179009
Hopefully, TP will at least pass this one thru.
March 28th, 2007 at 9:03 pmDouglas Watts @ 47:
Right on to that. We are being robbed and these a-holes want to hold the door. Just wait until the 30 percenters realize it – there’ll be lots of lamentations, gnashing of teeth, and rending of clothes in the trailer park that night. I just wish I wasn’t getting robbed right along with them.
March 28th, 2007 at 9:08 pm#55 stonehinge, went on over but can not find the article. Any hints?
March 28th, 2007 at 9:08 pmwho led with “liberal vermin”??
you suck at this game – try a different one.
March 28th, 2007 at 9:11 pmJohn, see above for the link at TomDispatch. At Antiwar, the only way you can find the article is if you have the RSS feed.
March 28th, 2007 at 9:12 pmThanx stonehinge, will read
March 28th, 2007 at 9:12 pmSorry Z, it was me (a bad case of tab and paste). I reread what I posted as Jake, and it did look very strange. Par for the course. Ha!
David is Jake. I’m still me.
March 28th, 2007 at 9:15 pmIt isn’t that there’s “pork” in the supplemental that should disturb people, it’s that the Pentagon so wildly underestimates how much it needs to run a war. The bill includes a couple hundred million for ammunition as well as weapons for all 4 branches of the military. It has billions for personnel costs. Did the Pentagon suddenly discover it had people who hadn’t been paid since they finished the budget for FY07?
These supplementals are just an attempt to get around the budget. I’m not sure there should be a celebration of the Congress spending a boatload more of your money and mine.
March 28th, 2007 at 9:17 pmDavid is Jake. I’m still me.
Comment by smafdy
Thanks for clearing that up! :-D
March 28th, 2007 at 9:20 pmI had a problem with the extras in the Bill until I read through a summary of it. I agree with what Tom Baker and CA Rebel say about it.
March 28th, 2007 at 9:21 pmThis was for the most part necessary domestic spending especially the funding for Katrina Relief. We can thank the last Congress run by the Repugs for THAT egrigeous ommission.
The only spending I didn’t agree with was funding for the Conventions. BLEH!! That should be the responsibility of the Political Parties themselves. Should not be billed to the taxpayers of our country. We already pay for enough wasteful projects like, a certain useless war in a godforsaken place.
Thanks John, I’m so glad your so smart! *APPLAUSE* Wow!
March 28th, 2007 at 9:21 pmJim Wolf,
On the conventions, perhaps you might reconsider that one sure way to reduce the influence of AIPAC, CPAC and the corporate big money is if we move towards public financing of political campaigns. Everything else has failed miserably. In the end, we would probably save money by going that way. Look at all the corporate welfare to big pharma and the massive losses in the Middle East. Every bit of that is the result of corporate/PAC influence in our political process.
March 28th, 2007 at 9:34 pmPelosi is weak and so are the Dems. Grow a spine and do something about the genocide in Iraq.
March 28th, 2007 at 9:37 pmNow that i have the links published, I’ll try to recreate what I had written before.
There is a lot of complaining from the antiwar people that this bill is a sellout. But once you consider the massive inertia to change which is put up by the Beltway insiders and the media punditry, and if you factor in the way that Bu$hco has successfully neutered the public protest against the war, then this bill makes for a pretty good first step. If is only serves to highlight the administration’s dishonesty, then it still won’t be a waste. We have to start somewhere. To me, the real question is how soon do we get the legislation prohibiting unauthorized adventurism in Iran?
March 28th, 2007 at 9:44 pmHey michigan man,
are you friends with terry nichols? you sure sound like it.
March 28th, 2007 at 9:44 pmStonehinge
March 28th, 2007 at 9:48 pmHadn’t thought of that. I like the idea to say the least. But for it to be a reality would require the most fundamental change to occur in Washington. Don’t think it will happen there but in the states it just might take hold. A few states have already passed a “Clean Elections ” law. It only addresses election laws but its a start.
Usually, Federal Domestic Legislation be it good or bad has its genisis at the state level. We’ll see what happens.
hey michigan man,
before you jump ship on bush remember you voted for him. idiot. don’t blame him on us. he’s a facist, he’s a republican, he’s your boy. don’t be so intellectually dishonest.
March 28th, 2007 at 9:49 pmListen to the nice lady before she puts it back on the table.
March 28th, 2007 at 9:55 pmPelosi is very cool. The Clintons and their DLC, GOP ass kissing buddies could take a lesson or two from her.
March 28th, 2007 at 9:59 pm#69 Michigan Man: more observant than ’smart’.
Excellent article stonehinge. The worst part is that by the time the avg. American feels some REAL consequences & feels the need to act, it may be too late.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:03 pmThis Pelosi comes off as a real dictator, and a mean and evil thug.
She disgusts me.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:05 pmJim, I’m glad you see it that way. And you make a really good point about starting with the state level processes. There is no reason we cannot start looking for opportunities to push this idea into the mainstream right now. I’m game.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:06 pmIf any of you think that Bush is GOP your kidding yourself. He’s more liberal than Pelosi
Comment by Michigan Man — March 28, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
DING, DING, DING
March 28th, 2007 at 10:06 pmFolks we have a wiener, I mean winner. Of all the dumb things trolls have said, this may be the dumbest!
Either Jake Emerson had a brain implant or a fake Jake is on board.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:07 pmThanks for clearing that up John! Excellent! Bob “not hacker” maybe you should go back to whacking off to your Hitler movies. HA HA!
March 28th, 2007 at 10:08 pmI like how your responses include personal name calling. I am entitled to think what I think as you are.
Comment by Michigan Man — March 28, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
Posting isn’t thinking Einstein so why don’t you go think somewhere else.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:10 pmOh and the next time you get a thought, why don’t you let it go.
Yay! I win! Thanks Shane.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:10 pmPelosi’s “smackdown” – this time on Dubya – priceless, indeed! Actually, she’s right in that he seriously is in need of something to calm the nerves. Clearly, he needs some calming meds soon because anothr outburst like this one will reduce his polls into the teens soon. He’s looking like a loose cannon these days and certainly is not illustrative of the dignity of the office he holds. He looks like a cowboy on steroids and it’s getting rather disconcerting to observe.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:11 pmit would be highly irresponsible for congress to continue to give bush spending money without him being held accountable for the soldiers’ well being and withdrawl. THIS congress IS listening and doing its best to bring a peaceful conclusion to the madness of the white house and its lapdogs in the media. they have to keep the pressure on to bring a resolution to this sad occupation. the more bush resists, the more he reveals about his pathetic presidency and the more it reveals to us citizens how we MUST invest more time and diligence in picking our leaders and not bowing to the imperial court to select one for us.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:11 pmShane you should get together with bob the “not hacker”.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:12 pm“genocide in Iraq”?? How about the genocide of killing our own troops in a war of insanity based on total fabrication of the truth?
March 28th, 2007 at 10:12 pmDid AIPAC approve Pelosi to utter these remarks ? APparently so.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:13 pm#87 In keeping with the fact that Bush has “misplaced” billions of Iraq money (have we gotten an accounting of that lost money yet?), I’d say that the only “responsible thing” this Congress can do is to clip his allowance. He certainly didn’t care about equipping our troops at all with not giving them body armor, equipping the machinery, etc., did he? He’s a con job – he wants it both ways and it’s time for the people to give him one HUGE SLAPDOWN. Cut him off at the knees and if they can’t cut the funds immediately then certainly they owe it to the people (whose money they are doling out, BTW) that we want total accountability this time or “NO DEAL”.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:15 pmStonehinge, we’re seeing it happen here in Colorado. We are now a State and our Legislature is becoming quite activist in that regard. Too much it would appear for our Gov. Bill Ritter. But thats okay. these things take time and I think it will begin to show. I think you might see the West as a whole take the lead on things like this.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:15 pmThanks for clearing that up! :-D
Comment by Zooey — March 28, 2007 @ 9:20 pm
So all the new, sane Jake posts are (?) certainly not the original Jake.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:16 pmWell, John, I agree. For me, one of the big take-homes from that article was the reason why the antiwar protest movement has been so ineffective to-date. If more people understood that they could have an impact, then we might start to pick up a bit more inertia in the right direction. I hope that Pelosi’s shot across the bow will help to bring more people to their senses.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:17 pmWhats your point Jason? If anything, AIPAC probably wasn’t liking anything Madam Pelosi said today.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:17 pmComment by Michigan Man — March 28, 2007 @ 10:12 pm
Yeah wiener you’re just the man we’re looking to for advice.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:22 pmI’m an illegal mexican troll Shane. I no speaka englesh.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:24 pmI think Jason’s point is, he cannot believe AIPAC allowed Nancy to say that stuff.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:31 pmOh, Shane, you should stop licking wieners. It’s bad for your health. HA HA. Bye.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:31 pmWow, Jim, I used to live in Colorado, back in the days when I flew gliders and aerobatic biplanes. It would be amazing to see a reform like that move across the states. But, now that you mention it, that would be the only way it could happen. Getting these Beltway Bandits to ease off on the feedbag is gonna be harder than pulling an armadillo out of a hole in the ground. ;-)
March 28th, 2007 at 10:34 pmThis Pelosi comes off as a real dictator, and a mean and evil thug. She disgusts me.
Firehead, that kind of talking point doesn’t fly in this forum, as we can all watch the video and listen to the cool, measured, rational voice the lady is using. So we can guess you are either spinning furiously, a fanatic, or in the middle of a drug flashback.
Another big plus here: Pelosi is one of a handful of Beltway Democrats who can speak an entire paragraph on camera without stuttering, droning, mumbling, hesitating, or garbling. They’ve needed that desperately since . . . well, since 1968 or thereabouts.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:35 pmSomehow, I don’t think Nancy Pelosi gets her Talking/Speaking Points from AIPAC. I think she can speak for herself well enough. Shes’ proven that from Day 1 since she became Speaker.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:35 pmIf Georgie’s mama had spoken to him like that about many years ago, he might be a different person today – instead, she gave Georgie everything he wanted, and let him believe the sun revolved around him — he never grew up.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:35 pmPelosi is speaking like an adult would/should speak to a petulant child — patiently admonishing him to calm down, and if he doesn’t, he knows she will give him a time out.
#94 yes stonehinge, I don’t think many people exercise their individual will these days unless there is an immediate or sure material/objective payoff. I guess the result of enldess advertising and consumerism since birth.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:36 pmSpeaker Pelosi will be a great President.
If Bush vetoes a Congressional funding of the Iraq occupation and the Afghanistan occupation, because it contains language that will require US withdrawal from Iraq, the Democrats should just sit tight. There is no good reason to override a Bush veto in this case. If Bush vetoes any continued funding of this wretched occupation, then it will end sooner rather than later.
I am sure that the American people are getting more fed up with the Bush monkeyshines each day. They will show little patience with Bushie’s semantic word games and pathetic attempts at bullying at this late date…
March 28th, 2007 at 10:40 pmStonehinge- Were did you live in Colorado? I’m in Basalt, used to live in Aspen until it got too expensive. Love the area though. Had to laugh at that last statement. Completly agree with you. Sounds like you’re in Texas now? (I hope not!!).
March 28th, 2007 at 10:45 pmW to Nancy: Can I trouble you for a warm glass of milk? It helps me go to sleep.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:46 pmNancy to W: You can trouble me for a warm glass of shut-the-hell-up. Now, you will go to sleep or I will put you to sleep. Check out the name tag. You’re in my world now, grandma.
Remember DEms wanted an up or down vote on minimum wage only? But the pugs tacked on a tax cut for the rich?
You weren’t crying then. Can in repugnants…
March 28th, 2007 at 10:48 pmThe Speaker seems to be unaware that the president has the constitutional authority to veto bills from Congress that he or she feels are irresponsible or injurious to the nation. Speaker Pelosi needs to learn that in the absence of a majority sufficient to override a presidential veto she will need to work with the president to pass responsible legislation and stop playing games with the lives of American military personnel.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:52 pmSomething else I picked up on yesterday. Israel has indicated that it is very interested in Saudi Arabia’s proposal for negotiations between the Israeli’s and the Palastinian Authority. Apparently they believe most of the proposal is workable except the Right Of Return which is a very sore point for both sides.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:55 pmBottom Line: If the Saudis and Israelis start talking with each other to solve this then it represents a FUNDAMENTAL shift in the geo-political landscape there. That would be an incredible development.
Exley,
The President seems to be unaware that the Speaker can put impeachment back on the table.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:56 pmExley: He needs to work with the Congress. Congress controls the purse strings. And Bush needs to stop playing with the lives of American Military Personal.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:59 pmDo you make a habit of ignoring polls like your President does? We want out of Iraq. NOW The American People have spoken. I suggest Bush listen.
Jim, I lived in Denver for a couple of years while I was supervising the design of a huge gas processing facility in Wyoming. That was during the Reagan administration and I was just remembering how insane his policies seemed at the time. That was further amplified in my mind as I witnessed the total collapse of a huge segment of the engineering and construction business.
That was an amazing for time for me, and I was just thinking back on it, thinking how suicidal some of those things would be now, considering the way our social structure has fallen to pieces with the relentless onslaught of privatization and institutional downsizing. Even if I could, I’m not sure I’d want to fly aerobatic planes today, given the sorry state of the aviation industry as it is.
You know, I wonder if that glider port is still open outside of Colorado Springs. Have you ever seen it?
March 28th, 2007 at 11:05 pmWolf359,
Congress and the president need to work together; agreed. But working together does not mean he needs to roll over and accept irresponsible legislation passed by Congress. Indeed, the Constitution gives the president the authority to veto legislation in order to protect the nation from poorly crafted, ill-considered legislation. Pelosi knew this legislation had no chance of being signed by the president. Rather than working to pass a responsible bill, Pelosi chose to engage in cheap political theatrics and failed to meet her responsibilities to make certain our troops were adequately armed and equipped.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:09 pmStonehinge, I’ve heard about it and I think it is still open. Doesn’t the Air Force Academy use for basic flight training?
March 28th, 2007 at 11:10 pm#104 John. Yes, this is a huge problem amongst those who have the potential to bring some good into this system. What bothers me the most is that the fundamentalists have no qualms whatsoever about taking radical action. There is an article today on AlterNet about the construction of huge animatronic Creation Museums which serve no purpose except to present the most profoundly fraudulent view of paleontology. They are much like the Holocaust Museums which grossly misrepresent the horrors of WWII to advance the cause of Zionism. These both represent the unchecked advance of totalitarianism and if we Progressives don’t start to react very soon, all will be lost in the near future.
Here’s the article if you are interested and haven’t seen it already:
http://www.alternet.org/rights/49811/
March 28th, 2007 at 11:14 pmThe Speaker seems to be unaware that the president has the constitutional authority to veto bills from Congress that he or she feels are irresponsible or injurious to the nation.
Comment by Exley — March 28, 2007 @ 10:52 pm
That’s funny because the Democrats passed this bill to stop Bush’s irresponsible Iraq escapade which has harmed and continues to harm this nation.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:16 pmRather than working to pass a responsible bill, Pelosi chose to engage in cheap political theatrics and failed to meet her responsibilities to make certain our troops were adequately armed and equipped.
Comment by Exley — March 28, 2007 @ 11:09 pm
She’s trying to save the troops from an irresponsible and reckless president.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:22 pmExley, the legislation is quite sound. The troops get the money, some of the infrastructural underinvestment over the last six years has finally been addressed and we now have a timeline to end a disastrous misadventure which we are not competent to win.
What exactly is unsound about that?
March 28th, 2007 at 11:22 pmExley, Lets talk political theater shall we? And while were at it Pot meet Kettle. The Definition of irresponsible is this President, Administration and the last Congress. To Wit:
March 28th, 2007 at 11:25 pmLack of Uparmored Vehicles
Lack of good Body Armour
Plan to win “The War on Terror” Plan? we don’t need no stinkin Plan!!
Civil War in Iraq: The result of shoddy planning or unrealistic expectations. Remenber Cheney and his “greeted as liberators” comment? I’m sure you do.
Representative Democracy in Iraq: More like an ehtnic cleansing under way. Brought to you be Maliki and Co.
And all of this brought to us by a President who lied through his teeth to have his war. And now has no idea how to get us the F**K out his morass.
I’ll say it again Exley in case you missed it. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN. GET US OUT OF IRAQ NOW!!
Bush ignores the American People and the Congress at his own peril. As Barbara Boxer said to Inhofe (and it applies to Bush as well), “Elections have Consequences” You would do well to remember that.
#115 Jim, I’m not sure the Air Force uses it, or that they ever did. I never met any military people there at the time that I was using it, but that might have changed since then. I regret that I never had the time to do any hi-altitude work there. It is actually possible to fly up the side of Pikes Peak from that port, but I did not have access to a properly equipped glider at the time. I always thought I would have a chance to go back and do that, but it never happened. That would have been such an epic adventure for me!!!
March 28th, 2007 at 11:28 pmStonehinge, Kinda like Paragliding off Aspen Mountain like I did once in a Tandem with an Instructor. Thrill of a lifetime!!
March 28th, 2007 at 11:32 pmStonehinge,
It is unsound because it has zero chance of being signed and no chance of having a veto overridden. So, what was the point?
March 28th, 2007 at 11:34 pmHow are Dems to respond to the veto, if it comes? As I write on Support the troops. It’s not just a good idea. It’s the law, it’s time for the Dems to start issuing some threats of their own. Ultimately, if Dumb Dubya won’t support the troops, the Constitutional remedy is Impeachment.
Visit the Schapira blog, “What we know so far …”
“… and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!”
March 28th, 2007 at 11:43 pmBush is not used to being checked and becomes unbalanced whenever our “old” system of government gets in his way. I’m old enough to remember that in 1974 Congress had the backbone to cut off funding for the Vietnam War. There was nothing unbinding about that piece of legislation. It’s time this for this new Congress to end this insanity.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:44 pmExley, if Bush doesn’t sign it, then it will unfund the troops, and that will be the sole responsibility of Bush. What could be better than that?
And after the uproar has begun to climax a bit, we’ll send it back with an earlier deadline.
You lose. Big.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:45 pmStonehinge,
Bush will never sign a bill that tells Al Qaeda when we are leaving. Pelosi knows it. The legislation was a stunt. There is no doubt that Pelosi and Congress will eventually pass a responsible bill that will fund our troops. Why Pelosi has to do it later rather than now is beyond me.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:54 pmYeah Jim, that must have been a blast at Aspen. At Pikes Peak you don’t fly down, you fly up!!! The pilot relies on the rollers which form to achieve lift so the flight is only possible when the conditions are just right. When they are, you can rocket up to altitudes well over 40,000 feet in a very short time. Because of this unique phenomenon, no pilot ever ventures near the Peak unless they have oxygen aboard. I’m not sure it still holds, but the world record for hi-altitude glider flight was made at Pikes Peak. Perhaps you can see why I always wanted to go back. It was such an amazing place.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:56 pmBush will never sign a bill that tells Al Qaeda when we are leaving.
Comment by Exley — March 28, 2007 @ 11:54 pm
The Democrats are doing Bush a favor. When we leave Iraq maybe he will finally think about going after Al Qaeda.
There is no doubt that Pelosi and Congress will eventually pass a responsible bill that will fund our troops.
Comment by Exley — March 28, 2007 @ 11:54 pm
A responsible bill has been passed. The president can either sign it or veto it.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:05 amYEA NANCY!!!! TELL THAT NARCISSISTIC SOCIOPATH “DRY-DRUNK” WILLFUL LITTLE TOAD CHIMPya TO GET OFF HIS HIGH HORSE AND STOP ACTING LIKE A SPOILED LITTLE BRAT WHO MUST ALWAYS GET HIS WAY—-CHIMPya NEEDS ANOTHER GOOD WHUPPIN’ LIKE HIS HAG-MATER Barbara OFTEN ADMINISTERED TO THE LITTLE TURD!!!!!!
March 29th, 2007 at 12:07 amExley, you really are getting low on talking points. Even the dimmest quarter-wit knows that resolving the Iraqi conflict has nothing whatsoever to do with Al Qaeda. If you don’t know that already, then please go educate yourself. It is so tiresome when you resort to tossing scat.
Scott Ritter: Calling Out Idiot America
After you read that, spend some time at the commode to clear your mind, and then come back and talk to me.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:16 amMICHAEL SAVAGE FOR PRESIDENT!
YEE HAWWWWWW!!
March 29th, 2007 at 12:16 amStonehinge,
If you do not realize that Al Qaeda is currently present in Iraq and responsible for many of the most repugnant and destructive attacks against innocent Iraqi civilains then you really have no understanding of what is going on in Iraq right now.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:25 amExley, read the article. It is you that has no understanding. That is obvious the moment you try to blame Al Qaeda. If Al Qaeda were at fault, you would have no trouble at all providing proof of your claims.
Where is your proof? Put up or shut up.
Speeches given by Bush and company are inadmissible.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:34 amHas anyone else notice that it is the WOMEN who are bringing in real change? (another e.g., Senator Boxer from California “Elections have consequences)
Slowly but surely, our country is NOT going back to hypocritical RepubliCON ways?
I DEFINITELY see the wind changing and its all moving in the RIGHT direction.
All “empires” eventually come down. AND Karma always kicks these losers (aka RepubliCONs) in the butt big time!
GOP = GONE OLD PARTY!
Thank goodness! :-) :-) :-)
March 29th, 2007 at 12:38 amMichigan man is right in the sense that republicans are for LESS GOVERNMENT. That means spending less money, less government programs and less govt in our personal lives.
Bush has increased the size of government to nearly triple the size of the Clinton administration. He has made govt BIG BROTHER, and his govt programs (LIKE THE MEDICARE B PLAN) are huge even compared to liberal presidents.
So that is what he means by Bush is more liberal than Nancy Pelosi
On that accord he is correct
Neo-conservatism is liberalism on Crack!!!!!!!!
March 29th, 2007 at 12:41 amIt is unsound because it has zero chance of being signed and no chance of having a veto overridden. So, what was the point?
Comment by Exley — March 28, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
I hope Bush does veto a bill that supports the troops and provides funding for needed training, equipment and medical care. That will prove it’s not about the troops, but Bush’s ego.
And, please, spare us all the overblown rhetoric about what will happen if we leave. When one is zero out of everything, your track record on predictions demonstrates that future predictions are more likely than not to be wrong.
Besides, we pulled out of Vietnam and the world didn’t come to an end. Now we’re trading partners with the Vietnamese.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:43 amLet him veto the bill. So much the better. No funding; then the troops have to come home.
Exley…..unless someone has hijacked your handle you are coming across as incredibly dull tonight.
In absence of US forces, you are thinking that Al Quaeda will make strides to gain power and influence in Iraq? Look, without the great enemy there is nothing for that movement to do there. Align with the Shia….I don’t think so.
Drink some more Koolaid and go to bed.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:43 amAsk yourself a question:
Why is it that the reported messages from Al Quaeda and the warnings from the administration seem intended to invoke the same reaction: keep supporting the occupation/ the administration/ the botched neocon policy or the terrorists win.
Eventually a thinking man stops being afraid and the brainwashing stops.
Enough propaganda already.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:51 am#134 Stonehinge, It amazes me that you require proof that Al Qaeda is responsible for much of the violence in Iraq. I incorrectly believed you were at least somewhat familiar with the situation in Iraq:
Clinton Says Some G.I.’s in Iraq Would Remain
New York Times
WASHINGTON, March 14 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission†in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.”
————————————-
THE IRAQ STUDY GROUP REPORT
“Violence is increasing in scope, complexity, and lethality. There are multiple sources of violence in Iraq: the Sunni Arab insurgency, al Qaeda and affiliated jihadist groups.”
“Al Qaeda in Iraq is now largely Iraqi-run and composed of Sunni Arabs. Foreign fighters–numbering an estimated 1,300–play a supporting role or carry out suicide operations. Al Qaeda’s goals include instigating a wider sectarian war between Iraq’s Sunni and Shia, and driving the United States out of Iraq.”
“Al Qaeda’s goals include instigating a wider sectarian war between Iraq’s Sunni and Shia, and driving the United States out of Iraq.”
“In Anbar, the violence is attributable to the Sunni insurgency and to al Qaeda, and the situation is deteriorating.”
March 29th, 2007 at 12:57 amBnF, if you can find it, read that Tom Engelhardt article I mentioned above. I have been doing some reading over at Antiwar and I’m coming to believe that we have an opportunity to align with the Libertarians to end the war.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:58 amExley’s problem is that her and her ilk have no more talking points or arguments left. Not that they any to begin with. The time thet are a changin. Its not going to be pretty for the Repugs and their synchopants
March 29th, 2007 at 1:00 amExley, I don’t think anyone including myself doesn’t believe that Al Qaeda isn’t responsible for a good portion of the violence in Iraq. What people like you won’t face up to is that Bush is responsible for their presence in Iraq NOW. They weren’t their until we invaded the Country and left a power vacum. A vacum that Al Qaeda steped into with ease because we were Stupid enough to let them!
March 29th, 2007 at 1:05 amJim Wolf359,
We females do not claim, accept or welcome Exley as a member of our sex.
He ain’t one of ours….
:-)
March 29th, 2007 at 1:08 amInteresting!
Please notice the “digi-noise glitch” in the CNN/C&L version that is not present in the Think Progress clip! On TP, Pelosi says “Calm down with the threats. There is a new Congress in town. We respect your constitutional role; we want you to respect ours. This war must end. The American people have lost faith in the President’s conduct of the war.”
Notice on the CNN clip that the digi-noise glitch enhanced clip appears to say “…the Pres//nt”
I love Gramma P!
March 29th, 2007 at 1:09 amWhoops!! Sorry Zooey. I made a REALLY bad assumption their. My sinceriest apologies. I beg a thousand pardons!! (Uh Oh, better save those for Bush. He’s gonna need them more than me I think!).
March 29th, 2007 at 1:12 amExley, I am laughing at your ignorance. The “Al Qaeda” in Iraq are the Wahhabi elements arriving from Saudi Arabia because we are stupidly trying to crush the Sunni resistance. The only reason they are called “Al Qaeda” is because most Americans would explode if they knew about Saudi Arabia’s influence in Iraq. If you would just read Scott Ritter’s paper, you wouldn’t come off sounding like such an idiot. You have been blinded by your ignorance since the fraud of 9-11 and for your own benefit, it is high time that you did something about that.
If you had read the article, you would now understand that your “Al Qaeda” will only grow in strength until we leave Iraq. That takes us back to the beginning — the earlier the US forces leave, the better, and better for everyone involved. Thus, Pelosi’s legislation is quite sound, ingenious in fact, because we can finally start to close down this asinine misadventure without taking on the impossible task of re-educating a nation of fools.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:15 amWolf359,
First of all, “Deep Space Nine” was a great show.
Second, you write, “I don’t think anyone including myself doesn’t believe that Al Qaeda isn’t responsible for a good portion of the violence in Iraq.” I am glad you recognize that fact. Stonehinge apparently does not.
Third, as I have said here for quite a while, I acknowledge that I was wrong to support the invasion of Iraq and that it was a mistake. Yes, the danger of Al Qaeda establishing a homebase or sympathetic state-sponsor in Iraq is now greater than it would have been if the U.S. had not overthrown Saddam Hussein.
The question now, however, is what to do on a go-forward basis. The world cannot afford an Iraqi state that is a harbor for Al Qaeda terrorism. I agree that the U.S. needs to get out of Iraq. But to do so, as Pelosi wants, at a pre-announced time, by which Al Qaeda can sit back and just wait for us to leave defies common sense.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:16 amHeh, Zooey…wanna get in on bashing Exley? He’s got a head full of crap tonite (oy, and like that hasn’t happened before)…he’s just begging for some relief.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:20 amStonehinge writes of “the fraud of 9-11 .” Well, that about sums it up right there. Another conspiracy theorist.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:21 amExley, whether or not we announce it, Al Qeada will find out before it happens. How? The Iraqi Govertment. Ask yourself this. How certain are we of the reliability of Maliki’s people? Not very I’d venture to say. That is all the more reason to get out now. If you’re old enough to remember Vietnam or have studied that war, then you know what I’m talking about.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:25 am“Deep Space Nine” was not my favorite Trek spin-off. Next Generation is still the Best IMHO. Thats also where the moniker comes from. “The Best of Both Worlds” Part I, Season 3
Scott Ritter: Calling Out Idiot America
Comment by stonehinge — March 29, 2007 @ 12:16 am
I read the article. Thanks for the link.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:26 amAnd as my favorite Vulcan would say “Peace and Long Life, Live Long and Prosper” Good Night Folks.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:28 amComment by Exley — March 29, 2007 @ 1:21 am
So, Exley, do you accept the “official explanation”? Since the “official explanation” involves about 2 dozen people of Middle Eastern descent organized and coordinated by a cave-dweller, isn’t that some sort of “conspiracy theory” as well?
Kindly explain the cell phone calls made from commercial aircraft while flying, when the technology to make such calls didn’t exist until several years later. Maybe the cave dweller used some sort of magic?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:30 amWolf359,
I agree. “The Best of Both Worlds” was the best episode(s) of “Next Generation.” The first episode of “Deep Space Nine” also involved Wolf359, though.
And, I will say it before anyone else does: “NERDS!!!!!!!”
Gotta go. Good night all.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:32 amExley, your “Al Qaeda” will vanish the moment we leave Iraq. That is why the Iraqis have already asked for us to leave. So, if you are truly concerned about bringing the violence to an end, the only way forward is to request help from the International community to supply a peace-keeping force which is commanded by the United Nations, not by the United States. After the abuse at Abu Graib, after torturing and murdering thousands of the Baathist leadership in secret prisons, after implementing the destruction of the Golden Mosque and after the latest attempt to grab the oil concession by forcing the legislative process, we have no credibility in Iraq to affect positive change. Get real, dude.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:32 amComment by Jim Wolf359 — March 29, 2007 @ 1:25 am
“He’s dead, Jim.”
(sorry, I couldn’t resist!)
March 29th, 2007 at 1:33 am[...] completely off his rocker. Maybe DJ can post some more soothing music and calm him down. Or maybe Speaker Pelosi will have some words for him… • • [...]
March 29th, 2007 at 1:34 amNotice as soon as the questions get serious, Exley leaves. It’s the only way he can retain his self-deluded status as “master de-bater”
March 29th, 2007 at 1:35 amBnF, I was talking about the article from Tom Engelhardt. It is a profound discussion of the obstacles that are keeping the antiwar movement from being as effective as they might be. He has some very useful comparisons between the antiwar activity during Vietnam versus now. Opened my eyes rather nicely.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:36 am“And I will say it before anyone else does: “NERDS!!!!!!”
March 29th, 2007 at 1:36 amSo right Exley! On that we can agree. Okay, now I am really going to bed. Night all.
Oh! Stop It Will You!! Geez Briseadh! (ROTFL).
March 29th, 2007 at 1:38 amHeh, Zooey…wanna get in on bashing Exley? He’s got a head full of crap tonite (oy, and like that hasn’t happened before)…he’s just begging for some relief.
Comment by stonehinge
Nah, I’m bored from whacking him on another thread. :D
#146 – Jim Wolf359
Heh. De nada…
Goodnight all!
March 29th, 2007 at 1:42 amIt’s the only way he can retain his self-deluded status as “master de-baterâ€
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
I thought that was trollie Michael?
BTW, he’s scurried away from our debate for about 5 weeks now. Heh.
Pissant.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:44 amStonehinge: You write: “your “Al Qaeda†will vanish the moment we leave Iraq. That is why the Iraqis have already asked for us to leave. So, if you are truly concerned about bringing the violence to an end, the only way forward is to request help from the International community to supply a peace-keeping force which is commanded by the United Nations, not by the United States.”
Putting aside your absurd reference to “your Al Qaeda,” if I thought Al Qaeda in Iraq would “vanish” as soon as the U.S. left and Iraq would not turn into a radical Islamist terrorist-sponsoring state, I would, I would loudly be calling for an immediate U.S. withdrawal.
Unfortunately, I am not at all sure that would be the case. Do you think if we left that the Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds would all of a sudden join hands and sing “Give Peace a Chance” and the violence would end? Of course not. The battle for Iraq would continue and be even more bloody and destructive than it is now. Car bombs against innocent Iraqi civilains would only increase without a formidable military presence in Iraq.
As for a UN peacekeeping force, I would be all in favor of it. I just don’t think it would make much difference. First of all, the multinational force currently in Iraq is now operating under U.N. auspices (UN Security Council Resolutions 1546 and 1723) and that hasn’t made much of a difference. Secondly, do you know of any nations that would be willing to contribute to a peace-keeping force in Iraq? France? Russia? I don’t think so.
As I said to Jim Wolf359, I recognize that we cannot stay in Iraq forever (or even much longer, for that matter). But the withdrawal must happen when it can occur at such a time that the decent, non-radical Iraqis have at least a chance to make sure their nation does not turn into the next Afghanistan.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:46 amNotice as soon as the questions get serious, Exley leaves.
How right you are.
I wish we had some genuine opposition. The trolls that come around here just create distractions, but they never seem to have anything to offer besides their partisan sound-bites. Perhaps there really is no legitimate opposition after all. Considering that the PNAC game plan is so laced with fraud, perhaps that should not be so surprising.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:47 amI just read Exley’s parting shot. It’s so twisted, I just don’t know why I even bother to do this. The most ridiculous thing in all of this is that the occupation plan has produced a city-state at best, restricted to the area inside the Green Zone of course, and even that is going down the tubes now that the resistance has figured out how to operate their rockets with a bit more precision.
My God……..
March 29th, 2007 at 1:53 amSorry, BnF and Stonehinge…While I realize that your inability to debate these matters with me makes you wish I would not respond and dismantle your rather shallow postings, I am right here and have responded to your comments. See my posting at #165.
Sorta jumped the gun there, didn’t you boys? Heh. Nice try, though.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:55 am“The Speaker seems to be unaware that the president has the constitutional authority to veto bills from Congress that he or she feels are irresponsible or injurious to the nation. ”
March 29th, 2007 at 1:56 amExley, Thank you for reminding us of Bush’s first and only veto… Stem Cell Research anyone?
Sorry, BnF and Stonehinge…While I realize that your inability to debate these matters with me makes you wish I would not respond and dismantle your rather shallow postings, I am right here and have responded to your comments. See my posting at #165.
Sorta jumped the gun there, didn’t you boys? Heh. Nice try, though.
Comment by Exley — March 29, 2007 @ 1:55 am
You accusing others of shallow postings, and an inability to debate! That’s a *real* joke there Dennis Miller! Dum bass idiot!
March 29th, 2007 at 1:58 am#166, An utterly non-responsive posting, Stonehinge. Try again.
As for you, BnF, you have claimed to be everything from a teacher to a lawyer to a structural engineer. And now you are claiming to be an expert on cellular telephone technology. You are quite the Renaissance man!
Although I loathe to even dignify your hideous efforts to deny the reality of 9/11, I will give you this (While Wikipedia is not always the most trustworthy of sources, this passage appears pretty thoroughly documented and well-sourced):
Claims that cell phone calls were impossible:
During the flight of Flight 93 passengers made a number of calls to both family and emergency personnel. It is argued by some that connecting a cell phone to a tower’s signal would have been near to impossible from the air. Based on this assumption, economist Michel Chossudovsky suggests the calls were fabricated or never made at all.[127]
In 2003 a Canadian team conducted experiments to determine if cell phones could be used from civilian aircraft flying at cruising speeds and altitudes. Their results show a 75% success rate at 2000 feet, 25% at 4000 feet, and 17-18% at 6-8000 feet.[128]
Carnegie Mellon researchers published results of a study in which they monitored spectrum frequencies generated by cell phone use during commercial passenger flights. They concluded that one to four cell phone calls are made during each average passenger flight, contrary to FCC and FAA regulations.[129] The study makes no mention of the length of the calls or whether a successful air-ground connection was actually made during the monitored transmissions.
According to official accounts, at 9:58 a.m.,[130] moments before Flight 93 crashed, Edward Felt dialed 9-1-1 from his cell phone from the lavatory of the aircraft and his call was answered by dispatcher John Shaw. Felt was able to tell the dispatcher about the hijacking before the call was out of range and subsequently disconnected.[131]
At the time of the call, the aircraft had descended to 5,000 feet, over Westmoreland County,[132] which together with Somerset County has the highest summits in Pennsylvania, at ~3,000 feet in elevation.[133]
Aside from Ed Felt’s call, and another made by flight attendant CeeCee Lyles also at 9:58 a.m, all the other calls were made with onboard airphones and not cell phones.[130]
March 29th, 2007 at 2:08 am#169, Heh! Says the man who embarassed himself earlier today by completely misreading a section of the Hatch Act! Hysterical!
March 29th, 2007 at 2:09 amAnd so, now for the crushing blow…
Putting aside your absurd reference to “your Al Qaeda,â€
No, it is “your Al Qaeda” as I have already explained. Al Qaeda is a cover for the illegal combatants supported by Saudi Arabia and the CIA. This have been thoroughly and massively documented elsewhere and will not be further discussed within this thread.
First of all, the multinational force currently in Iraq is now operating under U.N. auspices
We have a few stragglers left from the original contingent, nothing of consequence, never was. Furthermore, the occupation of Iraq was never authorized by the UN. This statement is nothing but pure historical revisionism. Exley, did you intend to make a joke out of this debate?
But the withdrawal must happen when it can occur at such a time that the decent, non-radical Iraqis have at least a chance to make sure their nation does not turn into the next Afghanistan.
Sorry, Exley, but this is the same garbage you get on Sunday morning from the likes of Richard Perle. The fact is, the violence will immediately subside after the US leaves. That is exactly what happened in Vietnam despite all the pundits screaming to the contrary. The same will happen in Iraq. The irritant is the US occupation itself. The Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds were doing just fine before we arrived. They will do even better when we leave. If there is any doubt in that regard, just read the following:
Open Letter to the Antiwar Movement
Exley, you lose…big. So far you got squat. What else you got?
March 29th, 2007 at 2:12 amFurthermore, the occupation of Iraq was never authorized by the UN. This statement is nothing but pure historical revisionism.
Utterly and completely incorrect, Stonehinge. Following the toppling of Saddam Hussein, the U.N. Security Council passed several resolutions putting the occupation of Iraq by multinational forces under UN auspices. I have already provided the citation. See United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1526 and 1723.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8879.doc.htm
Seems you need to do a little more research. Tell you what–It is late here on the East Coast. I need to turn in. Why don’t you take this time to educate yourself a little more on this topic? That way, you might spare yourself further revelations of your ignorance. Good luck.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:19 amUtterly and completely incorrect, Stonehinge. Following the toppling of Saddam Hussein, the U.N. Security Council passed several resolutions putting the occupation of Iraq by multinational forces under UN auspices. Comment by Exley — March 29, 2007 @ 2:19 am
BAHAHA, yeah nothing *revisionist* about that! The problem is it occurred *after* the invasion – you st*pid little boy! Junior, you’re one dum little piece of sh*t!
Why don’t you take this time to educate yourself a little more on this topic? Comment by Exley — March 29, 2007 @ 2:19 am
Great advice, because tonight you look like an idiot- Junior!
March 29th, 2007 at 2:30 amExley, don’t even start with your ridiculous 9-11 obsession.
On numerous occasions, you have whined that discussing the truth about 9-11 derogates the victims, yet it is actually you who derogates the 343 firemen who were trapped inside the towers when the demolition charges were fired. The firemen had already determined that the fires could be contained, but those who created this disaster could not afford for them to interrupt their plans.
And it is you are the one who derogate the living today by your adherence to the official conspiracy theory, even though that theory has been drastically changed at least three times. Even at this late stage, the official conspiracy theory still fails to describe the events that occurred on that day and they most certainly do not describe what was later found on the ground.
You derogate yourself by your continued adherence to the ridiculous idea that a few ill-trained and remarkably incompetent pilots could execute the kinds of maneuvers required to bring this plan to fruition. As you already know by reading this thread, I am a very well-trained pilot, and even I could not possibly have executed the maneuvers that were made that day. The flight paths were so incredibly complex, they could not have been executed using any known principles of unassisted visual pilotage.
Finally, you should know that I have degrees in chemistry, physics and engineering, and I am thoroughly conversant with the failure modes of steel and concrete structures and, in addition, I possess detailed knowledge of combustion processes and explosive devices due to my professional experience. I knew as soon as the buildings fell that they were downed using explosive processes.
At this point, it appears that Dennis Kuicinich may re-open the 9-11 files. If that does happen, the entire world will have cause for celebration as it is time to bring this junta to a conclusion and to bring the real perpetrators to justice.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:43 amputting the occupation of Iraq by multinational forces under UN auspices.
What a joke, Exley. If the occupation was being conducted under the auspices of the UN, it would be commanded by the UN. Your little play on words only makes sense if you are trying to cover the illegal invasion of Iraq. It is no answer at all for the very valid plan to place the security of Iraq in the hands of a legitimate international force, one that is not tainted by the grotesque abuses received at the hand of the US occupational forces. As I said before, I wish you were able to mount a decent opposition, but your arguments are so shallow and so obviously partisan, that all you really do is really waste our time. Your debates are worthless.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:55 amAnd so, to close on a lighter note, I suggest that everyone take a moment to enjoy this brilliant cartoon from the illustrious Mr. Fish.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:14 amTP, I see that you have deleted my response to Exley’s statement concerning the events of 9-11. If that is how you want to play it, then in all fairness, you should delete his statement as well.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:41 am[...] Watch Video [...]
March 29th, 2007 at 7:42 amWhy Exley is not worth responding to:
First it writes:
Then it shows up twenty-three minutes later with:
In other words, it is chiding posters for taking it at its own word.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:21 amStonehinge, do you have a link for the Englehart article?
March 29th, 2007 at 9:23 amComment by Exley — March 29, 2007 @ 2:08 am
Wikipedia. No wonder you buy the “official story.” You might as well be saying it’s true because Bush says so.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:27 amCongress sent a funding bill to Bush but he says he’s going to veto it.
WHY DOES GEORGE BUSH HATE OUR TROOPS??
March 29th, 2007 at 9:49 amI’ll like to know whatever happened to the Democrats promise to control spending?
politicians are all the same liar, liar, liars, whether they are Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Green Party, communist pigs, etc, etc, etc….
March 29th, 2007 at 10:12 amThe new congress just wants to do what every other congress does, GO ON VACATION.
They know it is dead, they just want to watch unfunded troop die so they can say “I told you the war is badâ€. Does this site mention the vote buying pork added onto the bill by your wonderful corrupt Democrats in congress?
March 29th, 2007 at 10:27 amVVGFU loses again! He is always good for a laugh, with his blustering incomptence and ignorance.
Stonehinge wrote: “Furthermore, the occupation of Iraq was never authorized by the UN.”
As I showed, the occupation certainly has been authorized by the U.N. wth Security Resolutions 1526 and 1723.
Keep trying, VVGFU. Yesterday was a very bad day for you. First, you embarassed yourself by completely misreading a provision of the Hatch Act. And then you topped yourself by revealing that you did not know that the occupation of Iraq has indeed been authorized by the U.N.
Here’s hoping you do better today.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:31 amso no answer? thinkprogress.org, or some Democrat here…
can you please tell us all what happened to the promise that the new Congress was going to control spending because this bill is certainly NOT doing that, all it is doing is playing ridiculous politics with our troops and porking a bunch of districts…..
can a Democrat be honest for once, can a politicians be honest? is this possible or is it like finding the missing link (although some say that John Kerry is it….)
March 29th, 2007 at 10:41 amOUR Nancy
March 29th, 2007 at 10:50 amWhat a LUnatic!!!!
As I showed, the occupation certainly has been authorized by the U.N. wth Security Resolutions 1526 and 1723.
Comment by Exley — March 29, 2007 @ 10:31 am
And, once again, Exley gets it wrong.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:19 am“Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
Poor BnF,
Realizing that I have provided documentary evidence that proves my assertion, the best he can do is pretend the U.N. Security Council Resolutions I cited don’t exist….BnF is doing the equivalent of a child placing his hands over his ears and saying, “La la la la la la..I am not listening…La la lal la la.”
Here ya go, BnF. I am always happy to teach you:
SECURITY COUNCIL EXTENDS MANDATE OF MULTINATIONAL FORCE IN IRAQ UNTIL 31 DECEMBER 2007, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1723 (2006)
“Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
“1. Notes that the presence of the multinational force in Iraq is at the request of the Government of Iraq and reaffirms the authorization for the multinational force as set forth in resolution 1546 (2004) and decides to extend the mandate of the multinational force as set forth in that resolution until 31 December 2007, taking into consideration the Iraqi Prime Minister’s letter dated 11 November 2006 and the United States Secretary of State’s letter dated 17 November 2006;
March 29th, 2007 at 11:53 amEx – I’m sure whoever gets both legs blown off at the knee between now and December will feel a lot better about it, in light of what the paperwork has to say.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:03 pmStone and VVGFU – I kind of appreciate Exleys contribution – it’s certainly of a much higher caliber than yer Happy Guys, Vindictive Vaginas, and the like. I don’t agree with him, and I think he’s a practicioner of equivocation and prevarication, BUT – he is aware of factual things – he does homework and checks facts, and will concede a point when he’s factually outgunned or just plain mistaken. Sure, he tries to shut down opponents, even when the opponents should realize there’s plenty of factual ground to keep the debate alive. He’s looking for a good debate, as so many here only claim to be.
He offers us the choice of fencing against the right, vs. having a dirtclod fight with it, as the others invariably do.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:12 pmTom,
Nor am I saying they will. As I have said, I believe the U.S. needs to withdraw from Iraq and the entire invasion was a mistake (which I admittedly and wrongly supported).
But my last postings are focused on the narrow issue of Stonehinge’s and BnF’s incorrect assertion that the UN has not given a mandate to the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:13 pmNow that the Senate has done the right thing and passed a bill with a deadline for withdrawl, it is very important that the Dems come off with a strong and vocal outcry that if Bush vetos the bill, then he, and only he, does not support the troops. When he vetos, that will be his mantra against the Dems. Turn the tables. Make the people aware that he is cutting their funding for sake of his own agenda. Even Conservative friends of mine agree that would be the case.
When can I purchase a yellow ribbon that says:
“Support our troops – Bring them home!!!”?
The Dems may have some new found power, thankfully, but you are still behind the eight ball!!! I am not sure who handles the ‘get the word out’ programs. They need to show some new strength and come out with some new ideas. Quit treading lightly. The masses are on the edge!!! Time to bring them to their senses and reign them in!!! Your new slogan should be “Do the right thing”.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:19 pmThat’s why I stuck up for you Ex.
However, on the flip side, one could (should?) argue that those were “show” resolutions, cooked up as a result of our strong-arming of the process, and our desire to make it look as though the Iraqi government, which we created out of thin air, actually had/has some motive of its own. There’s no doubting the resolutions exist – whether they have any redeeming value, and whether they “compel” (or justify, or excuse) our actions are entirely separate matters.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:01 pmI appreciate you sticking up for me, Tom…..But I thought we agreed I was an obfuscator, not a prevaricator! :)
March 29th, 2007 at 1:09 pmAnd, in the scheme of things, Tom, I agree with you. The fact that the occupation is now under a U.N. mandate really makes no difference at all when it comes to the situation on the ground. But, the U.N. mandate does carry with it some legal and diplomatic consequences. Like I said, I just wanted to correct Stonehinge’s and BnF’s incorrect statements.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:16 pmLOL…Let him eat cake…The balls in his court, but he doesn’t have any. Will he dribble or pass…Bwahahaha*
March 29th, 2007 at 2:08 pmThe balls in Dubyas court. Will he dribble or pass, or does he even have any balls….Bwahahaha
March 29th, 2007 at 2:12 pmComment by tom baker — March 29, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
I find that Exley dogmatically misinterprets both the facts and the law.
This latest is a case in point. I have posted numerous refutals of Exley’s position on the resolutions in question. Unlike Exley, I am a lawyer who has studied international law.
The resolutions Exley repeatedly point to do not create a UN endorsement for a war of aggression nor occupation. It’s as if, by repeating a lie, Exley hopes to turn the lie into truth.
If you search previous threads, you’ll note that when confronted with an accurate interpretation of the law, Exley leaves.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:34 pmEx – I’m just so grateful that you’re a (big)cut above some of our other, un-worthy adversaries, that I’ll reverentially refer to you by whatever name you choose, and I’ll refrain from ever calling you “the poor man’s Dennis Miller (who is, himself, the poor man’s PJ O’Rourke)” ever again. (although I will continue to refer to Miller as the poor man’s PJ O’Rourke, a career-track decision which, I’m now very certain, ol’Dennis wishes he’d never made.
Had everyone in DC your respect for the rules and the facts and the law, we’d be able to get along like the D’s and R’s did before the Atwaterization of the political process.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:39 pmBris — don’t get me wrong, but seriously, can’t you appreciate Exley’s contributions in some way, especially when contrasted with the Patricks, Jakes, and Happy Guys???
In every court case, 2 lawyers oppose each other with legal theories that derive from real laws and real precedents. Were we always privy to the 100% verifiable truth, we could check and see which one was “right” and which one was “wrong” – but we don’t have that ability, in Courts or anywhere else. We have to live with the controlled imperfection of our system. We have to debate from opposing points of view to go anywhere.
My go-to analogy for politics and progress is this: Riding a bicycle. To move forward on a bicycle, a rider has to continually make adjustments to the left, and adjustments to the right. Too much in either direction, and you’ll either crash or go in a circle – neither is progress. Our country has been circling to the right (more and less tightly) for many years, and, imho, has never really leaned left (with the exception of the SCOTUS during come decades). There is a manufactured fear afoot that prevents the public from accepting any leftward correction – and that’s probably going to be a very bad thing for us in the long run. However, contrary to what a lot of Righties would suggest, I don’t want – and I don’t think many of us here want, to substitute a left-hand spiral to nowhere for the right-hand spiral to nowhere we are in now. ( I also don’t think Democrats in charge are going to affect such a spiral, no matter the allegations hurled at them)
“Here and now” is the starting point – where are we going to ride the bike to?
March 29th, 2007 at 3:51 pmWow, Ex. You have an adoring fan.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:53 pmYes, yes, BnF…We all know you claim to a lawyer…and a teacher…and an expert in cellular phone technology…and Lord knows what else….
But, when you claim that you “have posted numerous refutals of Exley’s position on the resolutions in question,” I must question your memory (I won’t question your honesty…yet). I see no such postings by you referring to USSC Resolutions 1546 and 1723 …. I have never referenced them until yesterday, so I am not sure where you supposedly refuted my position on those resolutions (Unless you are saying you and Stonehinge are one in the same).
Perhaps you care to share your thoughts with the group now.
As for Tom, he is a decent fellow. We don’t agree on much, but we certainly can be civil with another. Personally, I think that is a good thing. I get along with some people here…The Schneiders. Tom. Krazny. Sometimes Spudge. We don’t agree, but we don’t derogate eachother either.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:30 pm#199 Thank you, Tom. I appreciate your kind words. As I said to BnF above, you are pleasant and decent fellow. We don’t agree on much, but we certainly can be and have been civil with another. And I think that helps the debates.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:31 pmBnF – I did not know you are an attorney. I have always completely respected your points of view (I ought to, they’re mine, too), and will still, despite this revelation (lol). I’m as fed up and pissed off as I know you are. I’ve also come to appreciate that hanging out here and taking up such challenges as there are re: my own beliefs has made me better at advocating for them, and better at defusing/dismissing the wildeyed theories many from the right advance.
Of all those who stop by here to challenge and debate, Exley is the only one I’ve witnessed who will admit a wrong – even a very fundamental one, and continue to participate in our discussions. To say I am his “adoring fan” is laughably false. To say that I will reject whatever he posts, out of hand, is to say that I’m as dim a bulb as the talkingpoints monkeys that stop by here to shoot their mouths off after loading up at Fox, or the Rushcult, or wherever else they pick up their jibber-jabber. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with checking in the rulebook to see what a statute’s language means, or checking public records to verify a statement, and I don’t honestly believe you do, either.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:03 pmI see that Exley is still sticking with the UN Resolution strawman, when the point that was made is that command and control of any occupying forces in Iraq, if there is in-fact to be an occupying force, should be turned over to the international community. Regardless of how any UN resolutions might have been worded, the current occupation does not comply with these requirements. Given this reality and given the history of the region, it is not possible for the occupation forces to stop the sectarian violence of which the US forces have been the major source of instigation. Substantial evidence has already been provided to buttress these points.
However, the ultimate point of this debate was whether the funding bill to be submitted to the President is sound legislation. To that question, the wording of UN resolutions and the composition of the occupation forces in Iraq is entirely irrelevant to whether measures of performance and timelines for withdrawal should be attached to the bill. Given the obstinate refusal of the President to comply with the demands of the American people to withdraw the US forces from Iraq, such measures are actually quite mandatory, and the question of soundness is entirely superfluous. The only real question here is how a Presidential veto will be perceived by the US public. As for that, it is abundantly clear than any such move will be viewed as acting contrary to the will of the people and should be taken as grounds for advancing articles of impeachment.
Since this appears to be Exley’s final argument after a substantial lapse of time, and given the irrelevance of this argument to the topic of the debate, I shall now assume that he is incapable of providing any further argumentation to support his position. And given that, I shall also assume that this debate has concluded.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:24 pmTom, I would like to agree with your assessment of Exley’s contribution, and I do try to view adversarial forces as opportunities for self development and cultivation — that is a fundamental tenet of my philosophy of life. However, I have to say that Exley never really supplies any useful argumentation. For Exley, it is all about winning and we never see any attempt to deal point-to-point with the issues in question. All we ever really get are revisionist statements of historical fact, strawmen and cheap tricks like you saw last night, interspersed with snide little ad hominem remarks.
I just spent an hour showing that everything that Exley has said concerning these UN resolutions is simply irrelevant to the question at-hand. And yes, I did it for the sake of self-development. But what real benefit is there in such effort? What benefit did you receive? What benefit did the readers of this blog receive?
What is your answer to this?
March 29th, 2007 at 6:41 pmmy answer is only that it’s better than threadjackery – it’s better than howsads and patricks and jakes – it has some connection to the independently verifiable world of reality we share, and the things that the people (agreed with or otherwise) in it think.
exley is a very good bellweather, barometer, of the “debate” as-we’ll-be-hearing-about-it-in-the-press. i’ve learned to bypass the idea that i’m often not debating the “macro” of an issue with him, as much as the “micro”, or that which will inevitably become the frame for the issue in the public arena (whether that should be the case or not) I like sticking to value judgements of the results (like you and BnF); Exley sticks to the mechanics and rules of the “game” that produces the results. His is a more detached, impersonal pov, whereas mine is emotionally invested with care for the well-being of my family and our progeny.
if you go back up to 196, you’ll see that exley conceded the point on relevance (your point to me) and, moreover, admitted a mistake- he merely insisted you admit the record exists at the UN – not that it justifies anything.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:14 pmOk Tom, perhaps i missed that admission. But, now that I look at #196 again, I don’t see any admission of irrelevance. However, that was prior to my discourse on the irrelevance of that point, so let’s see if Exley has the courage to finish this discussion.
One thing that bothers me about dealing with Exley is that I am so often induced to return his snide quips with ad hominem of my own. I decided to stop that last night, at least I will move in that direction. Hopefully, you saw a difference in my writing today. However, in my opinion, some personal attack may be justified when arguments are characterized by outright dishonesty and ill intent. Opinion here?
I must say that one of the major irritants on this site is the deletion of posts which deal with the actual circumstances of 9-11. Today, I am more than pleased to see that TP has decided so far to restore my commentary in post #178. Perhaps they have decided it is now permissible to start pushing against the root of this tree of delusion and iniquity.
BTW, I didn’t see any expressions of delight at the cartoon. It really was quite good. Did you take a look? We all need frequent moments of “lighten up already.” Don’t you agree?
March 29th, 2007 at 7:49 pmhey hinge – i like the lightening up – i don’t like it when things get too pedantic – i don’t like it when i’m responded to with the kind of indignation that only reformed addicts exhibit (and i’m not insinuating anything about anyone in particular when i say that) – fact is – “this” is some chatter on a website between people with a penchant for matters of politics – which are deadly serious matters, no doubt – nonetheless, the concrete contribution to those political matters that any of us really makes isn’t what we type here, but what we type and how much we type it in missives to our elected representatives – all of us doing that one thing is enough of an engine to create some progress – this place is the clubhouse, where we can vent, and fight, and say whatever the hell we want to without bloodshed resulting, and that’s a very, very good thing
March 29th, 2007 at 8:03 pmHoly schmoly, the Holy Grail of Progressive political commentary just might be Stiftungleostrauss. Start here for commentary pertinent to this thread. And BnF, if you check back, the Engelhardt article is here.
Tom, I’m grateful when some form of coherent conversation actually occurs in these threads. So much time is lost to highjacking and to statements of opinion that really go nowhere. This thread has been one of the better ones for sure. Thanks for chipping in.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:19 pm“it” is found in the real fighting of people who can refrain from killing each other, even when that means fighting again tomorrow – ask a successfully committed couple in a long-term relationship (have to laugh at myself for rephrasing “ask a married couple”)
let’s just all agree that the bicycle needs to go somewhere – urgently
March 29th, 2007 at 9:59 pmStonehinge, I am puzzled as to what “cheap tricks” you refer.
You (and BnF) made an inaccurate statement that the UN never authorized the multinational force in Iraq. I corrected your error and provided the language of and link to the United Nations Security Council resolution that confirmed my statement.
I was not aware that being accurate and providing evidence of such accuracy constituted a “cheap trick.”
In contrast to my providing support materials that prove my assertions, you provide little or nothing of substance. You merely make laughable and outlandish statements, such as that the World Trade Center was taken down by demolition charges, and leave it at that.
In this sense, you remind me of BnF. BnF constantly claims to be an attorney (among other career claims), but has never cited a case nor statute when making his specious legal pronouncements. Instead, he merely says, “I am a lawyer. So, I know what I am talking about.” It is quite unconvincing. He seems unaware that one of the roles of an attorney is to support one’s arguments with citations (case law, statutes, etc.) His inability to do so leaves his claim to be attorney in very serious doubt.
March 30th, 2007 at 2:30 pm[...] is little wonder that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi felt the need to patiently urge the President to “calm down with the threats.” Perhaps she and others in Congress ought consider having him stand in a corner of the country and [...]
March 31st, 2007 at 1:39 pmPre-Paid Credit Cards
Prepaid cards are one of the newest tools to pay employees. Prepaid cards are a secure, cost-effective and convenient way to pay employees, and often gets their payments to them faster than by checks which are mailed.
March 15th, 2008 at 3:44 pmTeen Girls Teen Titans Hentai Teen Girls That Are Hot
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 15th, 2008 at 6:57 pmProm Dresses Hat Hollister Clothing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 6:45 pmAnnelle
You always have a choice, even if it is only a choice of your attitude.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:23 amChapter 7 Bankruptcy Attorney Results
Can it be that your server is infected with a virus – I get an Virus warning when I open your site with Firefox – Just for your Info.
March 21st, 2008 at 9:52 pmGay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:03 amms pac man
I found your site via Google while searching for %KEYWORD% and your post regarding %TITLE% looks very interesting to me.
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:22 pmJack
Great post, very informative. Have learned a lot from your site.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:19 pmTeen Petite Teens Teen Titans Hentai
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 12:17 amCheap Flights First Class Alien Flight Cheap Air Flights Airport Code
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 6:11 amTeen Girls Teen Chat Teen Panties
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 6:56 amAuto Loan
If your dad wants a Susquehanna , It is easy to get an} auto loan in
March 26th, 2008 at 4:32 pmHearing Aids Cheap
Please keep these excellent posts coming.
March 26th, 2008 at 5:30 pmGay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 2:22 amGay Sex Gay Sex Videos Black Gay Men
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 10:21 pmDistance Learning Teachers Having Sex With Students Very Hot School Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 10:50 pmAll about Digimon Adventure Online Game. Digimon Adventure Fans Blog….
…Digimon is a small virtual pet. You can download and play an online RPG in the Digimon universe. It looks and feels like 2D graphic RPG adventure. You can train and level up your Digimon, make hundreds of quests, and travel through a huge universe a…
March 10th, 2009 at 1:23 amShag Hairstyles and Haircuts…
shag hairstyle basically gotits name from the word “shaggy” since …once the hair is cutand layered it gives off a shaggy look. The shag hairstyle has always been apopular hairstyle, and there are plenty ofshag hairstyles to choose from…
April 10th, 2009 at 3:52 pm