View Full Version : Where is Nancy Pelosi ?
TRUEFREEDOM
10-30-2006, 08:49 PM
Well folks just a few more days left until election day and there is one politician that hasn't been seen or heard from in a few days. And that politician is H.R.H. Nancy Pelosi. I wonder why that is ? Could it possibly be that the dem. party has her under wraps. Everytime she opens her mouth it make me wonder what it would be like if she were president of the US. Remember if she becomes speaker then she will be 2nd in line for the presidency. Which means she is 1st in line for the vice-presidency. A frightening and bone chilling thought.
I think we need to notify all the authorities and have an Amber Alert issued for her. We need to hear more from her. Why are you so silent Nancy ?
Nancy oh Nancy...Where art thou oh Nancy ?
She's at home sharpening her claws.
dylbert
10-30-2006, 09:27 PM
Yes, Pelosi as Speaker of the House is very scary notion. With Dick Cheney's heart health, her as president would certainly create economic havoc!
I would prefer her as Queen of California -- not as Queen of USA... The key element is even if Democrats regain House, and outside chance, Senate, their leftist agenda would require monumental income tax increase that would get vetoed. Demo. Congress plus GOP President yields many, many vetos, and virtually no bi-partisan support for veto override.
Gridlock beyond belief, if Dems retake Congress. McCain vs. Clinton II would return Republicans to power is very short two years with presidency and both houses of Congress.
DJofSD
10-30-2006, 09:45 PM
She's in the kitchen baking cookies.
Lefty
10-30-2006, 10:15 PM
She's in the kitchen baking cookies.
Maybe Hillary will share some recipes.
Secretariat
10-30-2006, 10:22 PM
Yeah, I agree guys. I'm hoping Murtha takes over the leadership when we win.
JustRalph
10-30-2006, 10:34 PM
Yeah, I agree guys. I'm hoping Murtha takes over the leadership when we win.
Yeah, that is what we need. A Marine who has lost his mind............ole Blood and Guts...........except when it comes to fighting wars..........
Pelosi could whip Mutha. :lol:
lsbets
10-30-2006, 10:56 PM
Yeah, I agree guys. I'm hoping Murtha takes over the leadership when we win.
Would that be the first time an uninidcted co-conspirator in a major criminal prosecution was placed into leadership?
Secretariat
10-30-2006, 11:00 PM
Would that be the first time an uninidcted co-conspirator in a major criminal prosecution was placed into leadership?
Thanks for typing unindicted, unlike the indicted Delay.
lsbets
10-30-2006, 11:06 PM
Thanks for typing unindicted, unlike the indicted Delay.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Delay is no longer in the leadership since being indicted. With all of the talk about ridding DC of the "culture of corruption" wouldn't it be just a bit out of bounds if the Democrats were to place a guy who was at the center of the Abscam trial into any leadership position? Afterall, he is on tape holding out for a higher bribe than the others settled for, because he stated he had more influence. He was only unindicted because he agreed to testify against the others in the case. It was also assumed that he would not run for reelection because of the bribery scandal and he would not remain in Congress. However, he ran, won reelection, and mainained a low profile while funneling DOD contracts to companies represented by his brother's lobbying firm until he was resurrected by Pelosi.
Seriously, you want this guy in leadership? Despite his service in the Marine Corps, he is as slimy a politician as they come, on par with Cunningham and Ney.
Lefty
10-30-2006, 11:12 PM
lsbets, the dems always stand firmly behind THEIR crooks.
I sure wouldn't stand in FRONT of them!:lol:
Secretariat
10-30-2006, 11:34 PM
Rove has not been indicted, and still has the President's ear.
I think Murtha will do a lot for vets, more than Pelosi, and I think the guy will not back down to GW which I fear Pelosi might. I don't think Murtha has been indicted or convicted of anything. Wasn't it you Isbets who spoke about rushing to judgment on Delay? Seems you're jumping the gun here.
Rove has not been indicted, and still has the President's ear.
Hcap says any day now! :bang:
lsbets
10-30-2006, 11:43 PM
Rove has not been indicted, and still has the President's ear.
I think Murtha will do a lot for vets, more than Pelosi, and I think the guy will not back down to GW which I fear Pelosi might. I don't think Murtha has been indicted or convicted of anything. Wasn't it you Isbets who spoke about rushing to judgment on Delay? Seems you're jumping the gun here.
Sec, I suggest you read up on Abscam and Murtha's role. Rove was not named by Firgerald as an "unindicted co-conspirator". Rove did not escape proescution by agreeing to testify against anyone. Murtha was named as an uninicted co-conspirator in a criminal prosecution. Murtha is on videotape holding out for a higher bribe. Murtha escaped prosecution by agreeing to testify against the others at trial. That is not an honorable man. I did talk about not rushing to judgement about Delay and many others. In Murtha's case there is no rush to judgement - the record is clear. Look up what unindicted co conspirator means, research Abscam, and than tell me if you find Murtha to be someone worthy of a leadership role. I don't see how it would be possible. Jupming the gun? Give me a break. The man is sleaze. Look into his brother's lobbying firm, what they get paid and the contracts his clients get with the DOD. If the goal is to cleanup DC, Murtha is not the man to do it, he stinks as much as the rest of the trash.
Secretariat
10-31-2006, 12:08 AM
Isbets,
I read what an unindicted co-conspirator is. It's a way around the hearsay rule, and it's the prosecutor suspecting a criminal act has been commotted, But he doesn't have enough to indict.
Here's the bottom line from 26 years ago:
"In November 1980, the Justice Department announced that Murtha would not face prosecution for his part in the scandal. "I did not consider that any money was offered, and certainly none was taken," Murtha told reporters. "The FBI who taped the entire conversation knows damn well no money changed hands."
Eight months later, the House ethics panel also chose not to file charges against the Pennsylvania Democrat."
"In the probe of what became known as the Abscam bribery scandal, Murtha was the only congressman involved in the complex case to emerge without facing criminal charges. He declared he was innocent, saying he had "met with two men who I believed had a substantial line of credit that could provide up to 1,000 jobs for the district. I broke no law. I took no money." A grand jury and the House ethics panel cleared Murtha of any wrongdoing.
I assume you now do not beleive in the legal system. The man was found by a grand jury to be innocent, and the House Ethics panel cleared him.
So let's see - Justice Department, Grand Jury, House Ethics panel. What crime has been committed here that he has either been indicted for or convicted?
lsbets
10-31-2006, 12:11 AM
And Rep Jefferson had a freezer full of cash as a way to save for a rainy day .......
Watch the tape. He is sleaze.
Lefty
10-31-2006, 12:36 AM
Rove has not been indicted, and still has the President's ear.
I think Murtha will do a lot for vets, more than Pelosi, and I think the guy will not back down to GW which I fear Pelosi might. I don't think Murtha has been indicted or convicted of anything. Wasn't it you Isbets who spoke about rushing to judgment on Delay? Seems you're jumping the gun here.
sec, no jumping the gun. Abscam was a longtime ago and they have Murtha on tape. He made a deal, as lsbets says, to keep from being indicted.
JustRalph
10-31-2006, 05:02 AM
Isbets,
I assume you now do not beleive in the legal system. The man was found by a grand jury to be innocent, and the House Ethics panel cleared him.
Wait a minute there Clarence Darrow!
Grand Juries don't find anybody guilty or not guilty of anything. As usual you misrepresent the facts and twist the wording to make it sound like a "not guilty" verdict came down.
Grand Juries return "no bills" which mean at "this time" there is not enough evidence to indict. Tomorrow morning something could come out and the Prosecutor could take it back to a grand jury and indict your esteemed co-conspirator. When someone is found "not guilty" jeopardy attaches and they cannot ever be re-indicted for the same crime. This is not the case for Mr. Murtha. A not guilty verdict comes down from a full blown trial. NOT A GRAND JURY!
Often times Prosecutors will present cases to the Grand Jury with limited evidence as to not show their entire hand. This helps them enforce agreements with dirty rat finks....... I mean murtha's........... because the subject or in this case the "defendant on the video negotiating a bigger bribe" knows that the prosecutor can always go back to the grand jury for another at bat. So, don't portray Murtha as a clean bill, no bill. He did his part in the investigation and crawled away under a Congressional rock. He could be indicted tomorrow if something else on the case comes out. It was nothing more than a legal maneuver to save his ass.
And that is the legal system in which I believe. So before you start accusing people of not believing in the legal system. You better portray it correctly.
TRUEFREEDOM
10-31-2006, 08:02 AM
Has Nancy shown her face yet ? come out, come out, where ever you are ....
Secretariat
10-31-2006, 08:03 AM
JR,
Please list one time Murtha was convicted or indicted for anything, unlike repesentative Ney from your home state.
JustRalph
10-31-2006, 08:08 AM
JR,
Please list one time Murtha was convicted or indicted for anything, unlike repesentative Ney from your home state.
There you go again....... (<----think Reagan when you read that)
try to smear me and my post by somehow linking me to Bob Ney........why not Bob Taft? ......... typical tactics when you are exposed.
Secretariat
10-31-2006, 12:25 PM
There you go again....... (<----think Reagan when you read that)
try to smear me and my post by somehow linking me to Bob Ney........why not Bob Taft? ......... typical tactics when you are exposed.
Nothing like answering my question. Ws Murtha indicted or convicted of anything during his tenure in the House, or ever for that matter?
I don't have to smear Bob Ney, he's done that himself. I thought you were from Ohio and Ney's district. and voted for him Am I wrong? if so, I apologize.
Show Me the Wire
10-31-2006, 12:40 PM
Ws Murtha indicted or convicted of anything during his tenure in the House, or ever for that matter?
The lack of legal prosecution does not preclude guilt. It is factually possible to be guilty of a criminal act and not be prosecuted. Additionally, lack of evidence does not prove innocence.
Bottom line Murtha can be guilty of soliciting bribes, without suffering legal consequences for is bad acts.
The act makes a crime and a criminal, regardless of legal proceedings.
Secretariat
10-31-2006, 01:02 PM
The lack of legal prosecution does not preclude guilt. It is factually possible to be guilty of a criminal act and not be prosecuted. Additionally, lack of evidence does not prove innocence.
Bottom line Murtha can be guilty of soliciting bribes, without suffering legal consequences for is bad acts.
The act makes a crime and a criminal, regardless of legal proceedings.
In other words there is no indictment or conviction. And in this country one is still presumed innocent until proven guilty. If we went by your post above then Rove and the entire WH would be guilty via the Abramoff scandal.
JustRalph
10-31-2006, 01:05 PM
I don't have to smear Bob Ney, he's done that himself. I thought you were from Ohio and Ney's district. and voted for him Am I wrong? if so, I apologize.
You were trying to smear me. I am from Ohio. But I am not from Ney's district. Neither of my homes are in Ney's district.
Secretariat
10-31-2006, 02:02 PM
You were trying to smear me. I am from Ohio. But I am not from Ney's district. Neither of my homes are in Ney's district.
Please list where I tried to smear you. I have no problem smearing Bob Ney as he's already done that himself. You're overreacting in a thread where people are smearing both Pelosi and Murtha.
Steve 'StatMan'
10-31-2006, 02:10 PM
Since she's hiding, will have to put up a photo as a reminder. Besides, it's Halloween, and the Hillary thing has been overdone. ;)
Steve 'StatMan'
10-31-2006, 02:13 PM
Did find a nice picture of her from younger days. (See, I'm not all bad. And talk about not bad....)
Show Me the Wire
10-31-2006, 03:35 PM
In other words there is no indictment or conviction. And in this country one is still presumed innocent until proven guilty. If we went by your post above then Rove and the entire WH would be guilty via the Abramoff scandal.
Presumed does not equate to actual innocence. Someone who commits a crime and goes undetected is still a criminal and they are presumed innocent. Presumed innocent does not impact actual culpability for an act.
Maybe in your mind Rove and the White House are gulity of something, but not in mine as I see no acts that equate to criminal behavior.
Soliciting bribes is criminal behavior.
Lefty
10-31-2006, 05:54 PM
Please list where I tried to smear you. I have no problem smearing Bob Ney as he's already done that himself. You're overreacting in a thread where people are smearing both Pelosi and Murtha.
Couple of weeks ago Hannity showed the tapes of Murtha wanting more money from the bribers. He made a DEAL with the govt to rat out others. So no conviction doesn't make him innocent and an idictment doesn't make you guilty. Delay hasn't been convicted anything either and won't be, i'd bet.
Don't recall Pelosi being smeared. Unless you think calling her a San Francisco liberal a smear. I have no pro with liberal convictions but it's telling when they try to run from the label and pretend they're not.
Secretariat
10-31-2006, 06:32 PM
Presumed does not equate to actual innocence. Someone who commits a crime and goes undetected is still a criminal and they are presumed innocent. Presumed innocent does not impact actual culpability for an act.
Maybe in your mind Rove and the White House are gulity of something, but not in mine as I see no acts that equate to criminal behavior.
Soliciting bribes is criminal behavior.
There is no indication that he DID solicit bribes, or he would have been indicted.
btw...I have to admit Nancy Pelosi looks a lot different than that early picture - (she was actually kind of hot). Ravages of politics I guess.
Show Me the Wire
10-31-2006, 06:41 PM
Couple of weeks ago Hannity showed the tapes of Murtha wanting more money from the bribers. He made a DEAL with the govt to rat out others.
Wanting more money, from the bribers, is soliciting bribes.
Lefty
10-31-2006, 06:42 PM
[QUOTE=Secretariat]There is no indication that he DID solicit bribes, or he would have been indicted.
btw...I have to admit Nancy Pelosi looks a lot different than that early picture - (she was actually kind of hot). Ravages of politics I guess.[/QUOTE
I guess the tapes don't count. If you say so...]
lsbets
10-31-2006, 06:44 PM
Wanting more money, from the bribers, is soliciting bribes.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Steve 'StatMan'
10-31-2006, 06:59 PM
Heck, I wonder why they didn't just offer him more money? They weren't going to actually have to give it away, just enough for him to physically accept it on tape to get the indictment. If you find a good fish but won't take the bait, but tells you what kind of bait and how much he wants to take the hook, wish they'd given it to him (albeit temorarily) and gotten the big fish (and then yank the hook and the good bait from his mouth).
Murtha is the one that got away. None of us like it when ANY of the corrupt ones get away. Well, sure seems Sec's more OK with it than the many of us, anyway.
Secretariat
10-31-2006, 07:05 PM
Murtha is the one that got away. None of us like it when ANY of the corrupt ones get away. Well, sure seems Sec's more OK with it than the many of us, anyway.
The only ones not OK with it seem to be Repubs in this thread despite the grand jury, the FBI, and the House Ethics panel. Do you honestly beleive if the FBI had Murtha on tape accepting a bribe that he would not have been indicted?
lsbets
10-31-2006, 07:30 PM
"I want to deal with you guys awhile before I make any transactions at all, period.... After we've done some business, well, then I might change my mind...."
Yep, those are the words of a man who is saying no to a bribe. Uh huh.
Here's more:
"Murtha: I'm not interested.
Amoroso: OK.
Murtha: At this point"
At this point is not the hell no that should have been said.
chickenhead
10-31-2006, 07:35 PM
maybe he was setting THEM up ls :lol:
Boris
10-31-2006, 07:47 PM
A recent memo from Pelosi to Kerry was just reported.
John
I meant keep a low profile and your mouth shut until NEXT Tuesday you moron.
Nan
bigmack
10-31-2006, 07:47 PM
Did find a nice picture of her from younger days
2 think, with all her loot she can still look pedestrian.
DJofSD
10-31-2006, 07:50 PM
Just heard this one on the radio for a T-shirt about John Kerry: Big Nose, Big Feet, You do the Math!
Secretariat
10-31-2006, 07:55 PM
Isbets,
Did he accept the bribe or not? Was he indicted or not?
Enough said.
The man has done a tremendous amount of work on behalf of veterans, and again Repubs like to smear based on a non-indcitment 26 years ago. I could list many non-indictments of Repub actions from that period that make this non-acceptance of a bribe a laugh.
Lefty
10-31-2006, 08:15 PM
wow, sec. You kinda remind me of the jurors that said O.J. was not guilty.
Wow, again.
lsbets
10-31-2006, 08:20 PM
If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I think PA used a good phrase a few days ago - intellectually dishonest. It certainly seems apropos.
A recent memo from Pelosi to Kerry was just reported.
John
I meant keep a low profile and your mouth shut until NEXT Tuesday you moron.
Nan
John, you dope, this is THIS Tuesday, not NEXT Tuesday! :mad:
Then she sent him a Western Union telgram:
"John......STOP."
Glad to hear from you Boris! :jump:
Lefty
10-31-2006, 08:40 PM
sec, one more thing: Don't tell me you've never heard of giving a crook immunity for ratting out other crooks?
Secretariat
10-31-2006, 09:36 PM
sec, one more thing: Don't tell me you've never heard of giving a crook immunity for ratting out other crooks?
I have Lefty, but that was not the case here. There ws no immunity because there was no need for it, unlike Michael Scanlon getting immunity in the Abramoff case.
lsbets
10-31-2006, 10:18 PM
Let's look beyond Abscam. The reason to bring this up is Murtha was brought up as a part of the leadership if (and more than likely when ) the Dems take control of the house. Placing him in leadership enshrines the new "culture of corruption".
From Beyond Delay - the 20 most corrupt members of Congress and 5 to watch. Murtha didn't make the top 20, but he is in the next five, so according to this non partisan group, he is one of the 25 most corrupt members of Congress. Here is an excerpt:
"In 2002, Kit Murtha was hired by KSA Consulting, a firm that lobbies the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee on behalf of defense contractors. Mr. Murtha joined the firm at the invitation of top KSA official Carmen Scialabba, who had worked for Rep. Murtha on the House Appropriations Committee for 27 years.
In 2004, Congress passed a $417 billion defense appropriations bill that went through Rep. Murtha’s subcommittee. The bill benefitted at least 10 companies represented by KSA and KSA directly lobbied Rep. Murtha’s office on behalf of seven of those companies, which received a total $20.8 million in earmarks.
PMA Group
Paul Magliocchetti worked with Rep. Murtha as a senior staffer on the Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Defense for 10 years. After leaving the committee, Mr. Magliocchetti founded the PMA Group, which has become one of the most prominent Washington, D.C. defense lobbying firms. In the current campaign cycle, the PMA Group and 12 of the firm’s clients rank in the top 20 contributors to Rep. Murtha, having made campaign contributions totaling $274,649. In turn, many of PMA’s clients have benefited significantly from Rep. Murtha’s earmarks. In the 2006 Defense appropriations bill, PMA clients received at least 60 earmarks, totaling $95.1 million."
http://www.beyonddelay.org/summaries/murtha.php
Don't pretend that because this guy served with honor in the military (remember Duke Cunningham?), that he is some kind of boy scout. He is as corrupt and sleazy as they come. If he were to be in the leadership of a Dem controlled house it would be a slap in the face to all the Americans who vote Dem hoping to change politics (and corruption) as usual.
Lefty
10-31-2006, 11:13 PM
I have Lefty, but that was not the case here. There ws no immunity because there was no need for it, unlike Michael Scanlon getting immunity in the Abramoff case.
So, you just totally discount the tapes?
TRUEFREEDOM
11-01-2006, 10:54 AM
Today's NY Post has an interesting article written by Thomas Sowel on Nancy Pelosi.
The dem leadership has its hands really full now. They have to keep Kerry underwraps too.
delayjf
11-01-2006, 01:17 PM
On a lighter note, Nancy Pelosi, as House Speaker, would not next in line for the VP. If Cheney were to pass away, the President would pick his replacement. The Speaker of the House is 2nd in line to assume the Presidency should both the Pres / VP be killed.
TRUEFREEDOM
11-01-2006, 01:30 PM
On a lighter note, Nancy Pelosi, as House Speaker, would not next in line for the VP. If Cheney were to pass away, the President would pick his replacement. The Speaker of the House is 2nd in line to assume the Presidency should both the Pres / VP be killed.
Current rules dictate that the president and vice president never travel together. Lets hope that the secret service higher ups don't have a momentary lapse of reason. Thanks for clearing it up Delayjf
TRUEFREEDOM
11-02-2006, 10:12 AM
Its Novemeber 2nd and still no sign of Nancy Pelosi ? Not even a comment from her on what Kerry has said(aka STUPIDGATE)
TRUEFREEDOM
11-05-2006, 01:09 AM
Its now Sunday morning and we still havent heard from Nancy Pelosi. In fact its been a day or two since we even heard from John Kerry. Also not a single word from either Howard Dean or Harry Reid in a very long time. Where did everyone go ?
Is there a point to this endless, mindless posting about Pelosi? Are you trying to prove you can be as assinine and irratating as Lbj and Hcap?
Sheez, man GROW UP!
kenwoodallpromos
11-05-2006, 12:36 PM
http://www.hillnews.com/news/042004/pelosi.aspx
She's on WWE Monday!
TRUEFREEDOM
11-05-2006, 12:59 PM
Is there a point to this endless, mindless posting about Pelosi? Are you trying to prove you can be as assinine and irratating as Lbj and Hcap?
Sheez, man GROW UP!
Whats the matter Tom cant stand the truth so you bash someone. Right out of the Lib playbook. Very good. Why is it that those who immigrate to the US escaping totalitarian governments and can vote in the US know that voting for a dem is JUST like voting for a communist ? And those who are born in this country and can vote lack the comon sense to realize that
Nice immitation of the libs, TF - spin, spin, spin.
The only issue here is YOU, not immigration, not Pelosi, not voting - YOU and your constatn posts with no other purpose that to start fights. Just becasue I agree with your policitc in many cases doesn't mena Irepsect the mesenger. You and your buddy have fome to a horse racing board, ignored racing, and done nothing but pick fight since you got here. that is the only isse I am talking aobut.
So go puff you chest at someone else - troll like you two are a dime a dozen and better ones that you have passed under this bridge.
Perhaps you shoulld look a little harder....try this http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/11/05/PELOSI.TMP
And maybe spend a little less time here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200611030009
This is an election, not talent night at Jr High. :lol::lol::lol:
kenwoodallpromos
11-05-2006, 02:04 PM
Nice immitation of the libs, TF - spin, spin, spin.
The only issue here is YOU, not immigration, not Pelosi, not voting - YOU and your constatn posts with no other purpose that to start fights. Just becasue I agree with your policitc in many cases doesn't mena Irepsect the mesenger. You and your buddy have fome to a horse racing board, ignored racing, and done nothing but pick fight since you got here. that is the only isse I am talking aobut.
So go puff you chest at someone else - troll like you two are a dime a dozen and better ones that you have passed under this bridge.
Perhaps you shoulld look a little harder....try this http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/11/05/PELOSI.TMP
And maybe spend a little less time here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200611030009
This is an election, not talent night at Jr High. :lol::lol::lol:
___________
"(10-11) 04:00 PST Washington, SF Chronicle---- Traditionally Republican big business interests are hedging their electoral bets this year by increasing their campaign contributions to Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, whose party is given a healthy shot at taking House control in the Nov. 7 elections.
Business is still overwhelmingly Republican in its donations, accounting in part for the big financial advantage that Republicans have in the home stretch as they try to maintain control of the House and the Senate. But though the business community disagrees with many of the positions Pelosi plans to push if she becomes speaker in January -- raising the minimum wage, rolling back tax breaks for oil and gas companies, and allowing Medicare to negotiate price reductions on prescription drugs -- corporate America doesn't want to be shut out.
"They probably sense Democrats are doing well," said Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena. "I hope they're giving for more than their selfish interests. I think they recognize they have to deal with Democrats."
Pelosi's main campaign committee reported raising more than $1.2 million, including $730,025 from political action committees, for the 2006 election through June 30, according to the most recent campaign filing reports compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
The financial information shows that 54.2 percent of the PAC money -- more than $400,000 -- given to Pelosi in the first six months of 2006 came from businesses. That's up from $366,000 for the entire 2003-04 election cycle, her first as House minority leader, and $207,750 in 2001-02, according to data from the center."
TRUEFREEDOM
11-06-2006, 10:50 PM
Well folks Nancy Pelosi has surfaced today in her home town of S.F. She gave a public statement basically saying that if the dems don't take the house and the senate then voter fraud is to blame. She has stated that she knows exactly what the numbers are and there is no way the Dem. party can loose. Hey Nancy, can you give me a few good stock tips in the mean time. I hear ENRON is making a comeback. Any thoughts on that ?
Now is this what we are to expect from someone who will be the 3rd most powerful politician in America. I guess the Dem Party has speard itself to thin in keeping Kerry, Reid, Dean and Pelosi under wraps these past few days before the election. Just not enough hands on the left side of the aisle I guess. And there could be fewer hands after tomorrow night. Like I said...could be. You never know.
FOR SURE I WILL SAY AN "OUR FATHER" BEFORE GOING TO BED TONIGHT.
Hard to surface when you haven't been away, contrarty to the lie you keep trying to pass off here. I dpn't like her any more than you do, but stoopiing to cheap theatrics and outright lying do not help the cause. Cheap political hack of either side arae boors and classless. See any old tires there on the bottom?
TRUEFREEDOM
11-07-2006, 05:18 AM
Hard to surface when you haven't been away, contrarty to the lie you keep trying to pass off here. I dpn't like her any more than you do, but stoopiing to cheap theatrics and outright lying do not help the cause. Cheap political hack of either side arae boors and classless. See any old tires there on the bottom?
Again with the name calling. Libs, all they do is name calling when the truth is exposed. Tom you must not like yourself very much. Anyway I have a 2007 Ford Fusion so new tires arent need yet. But in a few years if you should see a set at the bottom, hold on to them for me would you please. I'm about to go out and vote in a few. And I'm goung to walk to my voting location rather then drive my gas saving car. TAH TAH Tom. You've done your best for the left. No be a good little "BOY" and drink some more coolaide push the lever.
kenwoodallpromos
11-07-2006, 10:42 AM
So far all the screams about "Repubs rigged the election" since '00 has gottewn the Demos is losses in '02 and '04, and Demos jailed for election rigging. Why do the Demos always have better plans for losing than winning election, just like better plans for losing the Iraq war than winning?
skate
11-07-2006, 04:34 PM
Ken;
good points.
they dont seem to have favouritism, as in "winning plans", for those unborn babies either, but i respect their opinion. as long as they do not include "yours truly".
hey, is that san -fran -nan with a new face? she seems to be getting ready.
either way, this is gonna be a really good show. in/out, i am enjoying this.:p
Again with the name calling. Libs, all they do is name calling when the truth is exposed. Tom you must not like yourself very much. Anyway I have a 2007 Ford Fusion so new tires arent need yet. But in a few years if you should see a set at the bottom, hold on to them for me would you please. I'm about to go out and vote in a few. And I'm goung to walk to my voting location rather then drive my gas saving car. TAH TAH Tom. You've done your best for the left. No be a good little "BOY" and drink some more coolaide push the lever.
Obviously, you know NOTHING of this board. I am hardly a lib, and I did not you a name ( you however, did call me one). I pointed out you are spreading a lie. If you are not lying, then show some proof. But just to make you happy, I'm calling you a liar, and a hack to boot. And I am voting NOT left, thank you.
Before you shoot off your mouth, you should probably check your facts, but that is obviously outside your capability. Hacks like you are a a dime a dozen, and you will be on sale tomorrow.
And, brother "coolaide?' :lol:
What grade are you in, anyway?
I could spell KOOL AID over 50 years ago!
No wonder you think Pelosi is hiding ( she certaily is not).
JMHO, but I suspect you are really a lib anyway - here to act like an arse as a righty and make them look bad. No luck, dude. Unlkike your side, this one doesn't support anyone who just claims to be one of us - we tend to look a little closer at people before we support them. I didn't have to go too deep on you. :lol::kiss:MA
DJofSD
11-07-2006, 06:14 PM
Tom's a lib?
Tom's a lib!
Let's start a rumor -- Tom's a lib. No, let's not and say we did.
Gee whiz, 10 minutes of reading random postings would have shown otherwise. Tisk, tisk.
This supposed freedom dude must be a plant from O'lielly. Just says whatever he wants, facts be dammed. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Lefty
11-07-2006, 07:35 PM
lbj, please bk up what you say. What facts has O'Reilly tramped on?
PlanB
11-07-2006, 08:10 PM
Lefty you're so carefree with PA's board.
"please bk up what you say. What facts has O'Reilly tramped on?"
Will PA allow a reply > 20 pages or more than 30 minutes long?
Lefty
11-07-2006, 08:28 PM
When you say things like that, you should be prepared to bk em up. Just a couple things will do. I watch O'Reilly most every night and don't agree with everything he say as hetries for the middle and i'm a rightwing conservatist. He is out there on the forefront of Jessica's law, trying to protect the children. And he's the only one exposing the late term abortionist Tiller the Killer who will give any woman a late term abortion for any reason. Medical reasons given a lot:Depression. He's also doing abortions for children. His fee for this murder:$5,000. Thanks O'reilly for exposing these kinds of people. Now that you've butted in Derek, your turn, bub.
Lefty
11-07-2006, 08:33 PM
PA, there's a happy face in place of the D for depression. in the above post. I chose no icons. ???
lbj, please bk up what you say. What facts has O'Reilly tramped on?
Last year in his war on christmas game, he said Saginaw Township offices in Michigan would not allow employees to wear red and or green clothing. Total and complete lie. They even had christmas trees in office. Some wore green and red neckties. O'lielly made similar accusations regarding a place in Texas. Both were out and out lies and after contacted O'lielly failed to apologize or even acknowledge his lies.
GO DEMS :jump: :jump: :jump:
Lefty
11-07-2006, 09:33 PM
Wow, that's really important stuff there, lbj. Maybe he wasn't lying but merely mistaken. Guess you think that equates with him trying to ramrod Jessica's law in every state or exposing monsters like Tiller the Killer in Kansas.
rrpic6
11-07-2006, 09:39 PM
Going to the Topic:
Just saw Nancy on the tube with my Congressman Tim Ryan right behind her.:jump:
Also on stage my pick for President in 2012, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Get pumped these are the young Turks indeed!
TRUEFREEDOM
11-07-2006, 10:03 PM
Obviously, you know NOTHING of this board. I am hardly a lib, and I did not you a name ( you however, did call me one). I pointed out you are spreading a lie. If you are not lying, then show some proof. But just to make you happy, I'm calling you a liar, and a hack to boot. And I am voting NOT left, thank you.
Before you shoot off your mouth, you should probably check your facts, but that is obviously outside your capability. Hacks like you are a a dime a dozen, and you will be on sale tomorrow.
And, brother "coolaide?' :lol:
What grade are you in, anyway?
I could spell KOOL AID over 50 years ago!
No wonder you think Pelosi is hiding ( she certaily is not).
JMHO, but I suspect you are really a lib anyway - here to act like an arse as a righty and make them look bad. No luck, dude. Unlkike your side, this one doesn't support anyone who just claims to be one of us - we tend to look a little closer at people before we support them. I didn't have to go too deep on you. :lol::kiss:MA
You didn't even scratch the surface. But you know best !!!!:jump:
You have proven to me that you are a "Kool Aid" drinker.
Well, then, my work here is done.
I dunno how I will go on knowing I have lost the respect of an internet troll/liar/hack!
Woe is me!
But I suspect you won' tbe here for long, now that the election is over.
The horse's ass is always the last over the line!
:lol:
Lefty
11-07-2006, 10:27 PM
Tom, at times, gets under my skin too. But one thing he's not, and that's a Kool-Aide drinker; quitethe opposite.
Thanks, Lefy....I think! ;):D
That's what seperates us from the apes - we can disagree and still come together. Let's see a lib do that!
BTW.......L I E B E R M A N WINS !!!
Wow, that's really important stuff there, lbj. Maybe he wasn't lying but merely mistaken. Guess you think that equates with him trying to ramrod Jessica's law in every state or exposing monsters like Tiller the Killer in Kansas.
Lefty,
What is really important is today's polls. Don't you think ? You asked me to point out O'liellys lies. I complied and you try to spin off. Sorry Lefty youse guys are taking a hard case of reality today, get a grip.
Thanks, Lefy....I think! ;):D
That's what seperates us from the apes - we can disagree and still come together. Let's see a lib do that!
BTW.......L I E B E R M A N WINS !!!
Another Democrat. Yeehaw! :jump: :jump: :jump:
Thanks buddy.
Another Democrat. Yeehaw! :jump: :jump: :jump:
Nope. You guys outsted him. You can't claim him now.
You don't think he will still support Bush and the war? Yer nuts.
Lefty
11-07-2006, 11:22 PM
Lefty,
What is really important is today's polls. Don't you think ? You asked me to point out O'liellys lies. I complied and you try to spin off. Sorry Lefty youse guys are taking a hard case of reality today, get a grip.
I thght we were talking about O'reilly and now you wanna talk election. If the worse you got is some Christmas story ya don't have much eh what? Don't you think O'reilly doing a good thing trying to get Jessica's law implemented in every state? Now that's important.
Where is Nancy Pelosi ?
Down at the curtain store :jump: :jump: :jump:
Hcap,
:lol:
luv_true_grand,
That's "Speaker Pelosi" thank you. :lol:
I thght we were talking about O'reilly and now you wanna talk election. If the worse you got is some Christmas story ya don't have much eh what? Don't you think O'reilly doing a good thing trying to get Jessica's law implemented in every state? Now that's important.
Lefty,
I was talking about O'lielly. You are the one that tried to spin it off to an issue. Just like you are doing here.
Nope. You guys outsted him. You can't claim him now.
You don't think he will still support Bush and the war? Yer nuts.
He will caucus with the Dems. What about my nuts ? :lol: Buddy.
lsbets
11-08-2006, 07:32 AM
The next two years will be entertaining if nothing else. Will the Dems explode from Bushhate like the Reps did in 98 over Clinton? Or will they be able to put together a coherant message? If the Dems don't put up, gaining control could end up hurting their candidate for Pres in 08. THere is little doubt that the two recounts will change nothing and the Dems have the Senate too, but wouldn't it be a hoot if Lieberman turned to his colleagues, flipped them the bird , and walked to the other side of the aisle? It won't happen, he'll stay with the Dems like the battered wife who won't leave her husband. One thing for certain - hcap's favorite radio host will have tons of material with the Dems controlling both houses. Could Limbaugh be last night's biggest winner? :lol: :lol:
Ponyplayr
11-08-2006, 08:57 AM
Going to the Topic:
Just saw Nancy on the tube with my Congressman Tim Ryan right behind her.:jump:
Also on stage my pick for President in 2012, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Get pumped these are the young Turks indeed!
I like Waserperson..But not for President.
Lefty
11-08-2006, 10:59 AM
Lefty,
I was talking about O'lielly. You are the one that tried to spin it off to an issue. Just like you are doing here.
Okay, lbj, you find a leetle thing of no consequence and try to pump it into something major, while you let slide the good things the man has done. I shouldn't have expected more. As they say, my bad for expecting too much.
JustRalph
11-08-2006, 11:51 AM
Could Limbaugh be last night's biggest winner? :lol: :lol:
That has been said a lot in the last couple of weeks. He is probably smiling on the inside
rrpic6
11-08-2006, 07:31 PM
I like Waserperson..But not for President.
Nice lonshot Future Bet. Anyone know if I can get about 200-1 at Pinnacle?
In 2012, not 2008.
rrpic6
11-08-2006, 07:33 PM
That has been said a lot in the last couple of weeks. He is probably smiling on the inside
How true. A guaranteed 2 year contract. He was washing his hands of some of his boys today. Sure a lot more interesting than his usual Groundhog's Day shows.
Rush really leveled of on the repubs this afternoon - righty so.
That bunch of morons did not deserve to win. We needed them but they let us down.
The repbulican party must be torn apart, torn down. ripped open and bled.
It is essentially dead and this is good. The garbage that led it must be made to pay, and a new party must rise from the ashes.
There can be no support in any form for any republican ever again.
We must allow the dems full control, no oppostion, and let the chips fall where they may. No matter what the casualties.
DJofSD
11-08-2006, 08:34 PM
Rush is part of the problem.
I caught part of Savage today. He's got a great uptake on Rummey. Too bad none of what Donney has subjected our troops to, he'll never have to endure. Where is he going to go to now, HAL? Or will he follow in the footsteps of not-too-brite and become a registered foreign agent? Screw him, he should be run out of the country.
Savage knows his history and probably has come closer to explaining what has happened on a national level than any one else I've heard or read today. Most especially McCain.
Screw the republican party. Before I take my kid for his swimming lesson tomorrow, I'm making a two block detour to the registrars office to change my affiliation.
You thought Bill Clinton was bad when it came to pushing the gay agenda -- you ain't seen nothin' yet!
My preference?
We hang Rumsfeld and let Sadaam go.
And put him back in power.
We can't afford to offend muslems anymore - not now that we are French!
We don't have leadership that is capable of defending us or winning a war, so we better learn hummility. We should probably apologize to Bind Laden, just in case.
I sure wouldn't want to have to go to war with what he have in charge now! Jeepers creepers.
Pass the quiche.
Secretariat
11-08-2006, 09:08 PM
There can be no support in any form for any republican ever again.
We must allow the dems full control, no oppostion, and let the chips fall where they may. No matter what the casualties.
Well said.
Uh, I menat that in that I have no doubt they will fail miserably, and screw up everyting they touch.
We need to force feed the people dem-dumplings until they puke and never are tempted to make this grave mistake ever again.
But I'll take the props!
Ponyplayr
11-08-2006, 11:24 PM
That has been said a lot in the last couple of weeks. He is probably smiling on the inside
Quite a few pundits are blaming Limbaughs attack on M. J Fox for the Republican loss in Missouri.
Lefty
11-08-2006, 11:35 PM
Quite a few pundits are blaming Limbaughs attack on M. J Fox for the Republican loss in Missouri.
Really? Tell me, have they figured out a way to blame Rush for the losses in the rest of the country?
Lefty
11-08-2006, 11:36 PM
Uh, I menat that in that I have no doubt they will fail miserably, and screw up everyting they touch.
We need to force feed the people dem-dumplings until they puke and never are tempted to make this grave mistake ever again.
But I'll take the props!
Tom, I got your drift, first time. Prob won't take long till the puking begins.
Ponyplayr
11-08-2006, 11:50 PM
Really? Tell me, have they figured out a way to blame Rush for the losses in the rest of the country?
No..That blame falls on Bush and his team.
Lefty
11-09-2006, 12:31 AM
No..That blame falls on Bush and his team.
Personally, I think it falls on the so called mainstream media with its constant barrage of negative stories about Iraq and Bush and virtually nothing on the good economy. Objective reporting? Not on your life.
PaceAdvantage
11-09-2006, 03:13 AM
I caught part of Savage today. He's got a great uptake on Rummey. Too bad none of what Donney has subjected our troops to, he'll never have to endure. Where is he going to go to now, HAL? Or will he follow in the footsteps of not-too-brite and become a registered foreign agent? Screw him, he should be run out of the country.
Oh please spare me. Rummy? As if the Iraq war fiasco is totally on his head? Bullshit. "VIETNAM HANGOVER" is what caused the Iraq fiasco. This bullshit thought that we had to LIMIT the number of troops we sent in there in order to pacify the MEDIA in this country who would cry foul if we went in there with a huge number of ground troops and consequently, LOTS MORE were KIA.....
As it is now, this country can't even stomach the LIMITED number of casualties we have endured over this THREE YEAR period of conflict.
Don't blame Rummy...he was just doing what the people wanted....a nice, clean, limited engagement with ZERO casualties and a QUICK and COMPLETE outcome. This was, of course,
PURE FANTASYLAND!
Yeah, he should have known better (and I suspect he did) and for that, he gets what he deserves. But the ultimate blame for the way the Iraq war has gone rests on this country's Vietnam history and the political leanings of the mass media. Period.
betchatoo
11-09-2006, 08:31 AM
Yeah, he should have known better (and I suspect he did) and for that, he gets what he deserves. But the ultimate blame for the way the Iraq war has gone rests on this country's Vietnam history and the political leanings of the mass media. Period.
Oh BULLSHIT! We had an elected leader with full backing of Congress. It was his decision that got us into the war and it was his responsibility to make sure the war was fought right. If he failed to do this because of the press then he was just a lousy leader.
Amen Bet,
Well it's nice to see the repugs are now blaming the press for their failures. Gives Clinton a break. :bang:
PaceAdvantage
11-09-2006, 09:34 AM
Oh BULLSHIT! We had an elected leader with full backing of Congress. It was his decision that got us into the war and it was his responsibility to make sure the war was fought right. If he failed to do this because of the press then he was just a lousy leader.
I don't think anything I wrote really disagrees with the content or tone of your reply. However, the fact remains, that post-Vietnam = ground troops as last resort and then only in the smallest numbers possible.
The reasons for ground troops as last resort, and small numbers at that, are NOT grounded in SOUND MILITARY STRATEGY, but in POLITICS and APPEASEMENT of the press.
Not a good idea in this case, obviously.
chickenhead
11-09-2006, 09:49 AM
I don't think Americans are too uptight about ground troops or casualties, to be honest, so long as they fundamentally support the cause. Fatigue is more important. I think the American public is incapable of supporting any war at a high level for a period of years.
It seems to me the Powell doctrine was specifically laid out as a very good military plan that also incorporated what the American people want and expect. Bottom line, we want to kick ass and have it done with. We will support that. There is no doubt that the American public would have supported more troops, with the expectation of a quicker resolution.
You give too much credit to the press imo, the people, in general, have their own biases that are much more important.
PaceAdvantage
11-09-2006, 09:55 AM
I don't think Americans are too uptight about ground troops or casualties, to be honest, so long as they fundamentally support the cause. Fatigue is more important. I think the American public is incapable of supporting any war at a high level for a period of years.
I'm not talking about the result of this war to date. I don't disagree that Americans have a right to be upset with how this war has gone to date, and I don't disagree that they should certainly upset with the lives lost.
What I am talking about is the MINDSET pre-invasion that led to the decision to go in there with as small a force as possible. I'm talking about WHY this was the mindset....why this HAD to be so....
Why were they thinking like this in the first place? Not because it was a sound MILITARY option, but because of the politcal fallout from Vietnam. They didn't want to fight two wars at the same time....one in Iraq, and one in the media at home. Turns out, that's exactly what happened.
chickenhead
11-09-2006, 10:02 AM
well I guess I'm saying that if that's why they made their decision, then it was a miscalculation as well.
I don't think Americans would have had any trouble supporting more troops. That word quagmire has come up more than once, and that's probably key.
Troop levels don't matter to the American public nearly so much as length of campaign and perceived progress. Americans want to be successful, first and foremost. To kick ass. If Bush Co put troop levels above that, then they totally miscalculated the public imo.
,
PURE FANTASYLAND!
Yeah, he should have known better (and I suspect he did) and for that, he gets what he deserves. But the ultimate blame for the way the Iraq war has gone rests on this country's Vietnam history and the political leanings of the mass media. Period.
Man. How sad. Your delusional. I know you do other things so reading great detail on issues isn't something you do. However, you should know that a leaner, meaner fighting machine is the NEO-CONS idea. It has nothing to do with the press. Go over to Progress for a New American Century, or read Crystal, or a Wolfowitz thesis. This is what they wanted... this is what weapons systems have been selected for. They view America as a country that can drop 25 thousand or 50 thousand, or even 130 thousand troops into a troubled area and straighten out. That is what they want to do... READ THIER GODAMN LITERATURE!!! The media?? wtf is wrong with you... The media , the media , the media.. For Christ sake!! The media is not liberal!!
Go find this Story in any American paper or on any of the cable channels..
It happened 3 days ago.
Israel has apologised for an artillery barrage which killed 18 civilians including eight children in Gaza, as the Palestinian government declared three days of mourning to commemorate those who died.
At least 13 members of one extended family died as they were sleeping when tank fire hit their home in Wednesday's incident.
The killings happened a day after Israel started to withdraw its tanks from Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza after a week-long offensive in which dozens of people died.
Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister, called the deaths in Beit Hanoun "a regrettable incident".
"The Israeli military does not intend to harm civilians - that is never our aim. But in the framework of such things, incidents like these happen," Livni said.
This goes on regulary around the world... while we support and arm Israel!! Go FIND THE STORY!!! Guess what...You won't!
Dead Kids...Dead Innocent Kids using weapons we made and sold....and now what? When they mortar Israel , they will flash their pictures on the screen and call them Terrorists? And people here will jump up an down like they know... Just like you think you know.
The media... I mean... I just wanna puke when I hear that,
TRUEFREEDOM
11-09-2006, 10:26 AM
Originally Posted by Tom
There can be no support in any form for any republican ever again.
We must allow the dems full control, no oppostion, and let the chips fall where they may. No matter what the casualties.
Sounds like Stalinist/Nazi propganda. The Nazi party in 1930's Germany were saying the same thing. And all the while before the destruction of the Jews was put into effect many German Jews never believed for a minute that Hitler was talking about them. To quote Kerry "It was a joke". "I didn't mean it". Many blame Bush for being an Isolationist but look at what you are proposing. If you have an opinion be quiet or harm will come to you.
To the victor goes the spoils.....enjoy it for the time being. It wont last forever. Just like the republican rule didn't. But now that the Dems won you want to turn AmeriKa into a totalitarian nation. Essentially throwing away democracy and kicking it to the curb. The same system that will put the Dems into power on January 1 2007 and has you today jumping for joy.
betchatoo
11-09-2006, 10:37 AM
Originally Posted by Tom
There can be no support in any form for any republican ever again.
We must allow the dems full control, no oppostion, and let the chips fall where they may. No matter what the casualties.
Sounds like Stalinist/Nazi propganda. The Nazi party in 1930's Germany were saying the same thing. And all the while before the destruction of the Jews was put into effect many German Jews never believed for a minute that Hitler was talking about them. To quote Kerry "It was a joke". "I didn't mean it". Many blame Bush for being an Isolationist but look at what you are proposing. If you have an opinion be quiet or harm will come to you.
To the victor goes the spoils.....enjoy it for the time being. It wont last forever. Just like the republican rule didn't. But now that the Dems won you want to turn AmeriKa into a totalitarian nation. Essentially throwing away democracy and kicking it to the curb. The same system that will put the Dems into power on January 1 2007 and has you today jumping for joy.
And so I must wonder: Will this post get rebukes from the same people who screamed foul whenever someone posted a Nazi reference to a Republican agenda?
And where does the totalitarian nation idea come from? Did I miss the memo that we are going to end elections? Will the President be ousted in a coup?
TrueFreedom, you dont know what those words mean if you don't think the people have the right to choose representatives of their choice. A lot of us who didn't believe as you do have lived with this for a long time.
Lefty
11-09-2006, 11:09 AM
Right, Pa, we Our military can't be beaten but the will of the people can be beaten down by the media. It happened in Vietnam and looks like it's happening again.
TRUEFREEDOM
11-09-2006, 12:04 PM
And so I must wonder: Will this post get rebukes from the same people who screamed foul whenever someone posted a Nazi reference to a Republican agenda?
And where does the totalitarian nation idea come from? Did I miss the memo that we are going to end elections? Will the President be ousted in a coup?
TrueFreedom, you dont know what those words mean if you don't think the people have the right to choose representatives of their choice. A lot of us who didn't believe as you do have lived with this for a long time.
Ah yes I see you twist ones words very well. Typical of the left. But those who did read Toms post(which obviously you did not) and my response to his post know exactly what I am talking about. Don't mince words. Tom's words were clear. NAZIism, COMMUNISM and SOCIALISM. You tell me where one has an opinion and can publicly voice their opinion(s) under totalitarian rule. Its not America of today but it can be AmeriKa of tomorrow. Please go back and read the post(s).
Also don't insult me and many of us who appreciate freedom. I have no doubt that there are those people who would want to come into our home's and silence us for voicing our opinion. As I believe everyone should have the right to say what they want. Please go back and read what was written. I never once said what you implied.
Your apology is accepted. :cool:
chickenhead
11-09-2006, 12:07 PM
true, you shouldn't be lecturing anyone about reading comprehension, as you obviously don't have a clue what Tom was talking about.
Summary of Tom's post: Let's give the libs all the rope they need to hang themselves.
Lefty
11-09-2006, 12:22 PM
Oh BULLSHIT! We had an elected leader with full backing of Congress. It was his decision that got us into the war and it was his responsibility to make sure the war was fought right. If he failed to do this because of the press then he was just a lousy leader.
Yeah, he had a lot of backing with just about every dem member of congress calling him a liar every day and the press only showing the negatives of the war. If FDR had the same backing that Bush got we'd be speaking a much different language.
betchatoo
11-09-2006, 01:21 PM
Your apology is accepted. :cool:
I AM sorry you have an open mouth (or pen) and a closed mind.
However, I will defend to the death your right to say anything you want. Even if it's patently stupid or a blatant lie.
I'm not talking about the result of this war to date. I don't disagree that Americans have a right to be upset with how this war has gone to date, and I don't disagree that they should certainly upset with the lives lost.
What I am talking about is the MINDSET pre-invasion that led to the decision to go in there with as small a force as possible. I'm talking about WHY this was the mindset....why this HAD to be so....
Why were they thinking like this in the first place? Not because it was a sound MILITARY option, but because of the politcal fallout from Vietnam. They didn't want to fight two wars at the same time....one in Iraq, and one in the media at home. Turns out, that's exactly what happened.
Prior to the invasion of Iraq one of the top generals in our defense department said it would take approximately 350,000 troops to complete this task. He was fired or forced out by Rummy and company. The political correctness of this war was controlled by those in power. It appears they were more interested in maintaining power then winning a war.
Yeah, he had a lot of backing with just about every dem member of congress calling him a liar every day and the press only showing the negatives of the war. If FDR had the same backing that Bush got we'd be speaking a much different language.
Lefty,
When Iraq was first invaded there were only two members on this board that openly spoke out against the invasion and we were both called pinko commie bastards and traitors. Don't try to tell us Bush did not have backing. It has only been the last year or so that the msm started publishing articles about the negative aspects of this mess in Iraq. Please do not try to compare Bush to FDR. Nothing compares in ww2 and the mess in Iraq.
PaceAdvantage
11-09-2006, 05:29 PM
Man. How sad. Your delusional. I know you do other things so reading great detail on issues isn't something you do. However, you should know that a leaner, meaner fighting machine is the NEO-CONS idea.
Is your ability to read into things broken? Why do you think these "Neo-Cons" came up with this idea of a leaner, meaner fighting machine? Because of the backlash against Vietnam by the MEDIA and the PUBILC. It all hinges on the perceived failures in Vietnam, and the media plays a huge part in all of this.
THE DRAFT IS A BIG NO-NO now. Why? Because of Vietnam. No draft = a need for a smaller, "leaner" fighting machine.
Puke all you want. If you don't think public relations (with the MEDIA being the grand conveyor of information) was a giant factor in all of this, you're the one who is SAD and DELUSIONAL.
PaceAdvantage
11-09-2006, 05:31 PM
And so I must wonder: Will this post get rebukes from the same people who screamed foul whenever someone posted a Nazi reference to a Republican agenda?
Nobody stopped them, and nobody is stopping you. If you feel the need to rebuke, feel free.
PaceAdvantage
11-09-2006, 05:34 PM
The political correctness of this war was controlled by those in power.
Back to my main question....why was this so? Why was there any consideration of political correctness? There IS NO political correctness when it comes to war, in my opinion. What was driving "Rummy and Co." to act in this manner? I've already given my opinion. What's yours?
TRUEFREEDOM
11-09-2006, 08:50 PM
I AM sorry you have an open mouth (or pen) and a closed mind.
However, I will defend to the death your right to say anything you want. Even if it's patently stupid or a blatant lie.
DITTO !!!!
Back to my main question....why was this so? Why was there any consideration of political correctness? There IS NO political correctness when it comes to war, in my opinion. What was driving "Rummy and Co." to act in this manner? I've already given my opinion. What's yours?
You parsed my quote, I had told you why this was so. I'll repeat it here.
The political correctness of this war was controlled by those in power. It appears they were more interested in maintaining power then winning a war.
Truefreedom - you really should read more and think before you post., You have made a total ASS of yourelf several times already. I almost feel sorry for
you. When you pick out people to focus on, you should at least know someting about them, which obviously YOU do not.:lol:
First I'm a lib, then I'm a Nazi!
Ususally when the nut truck drops them off here, they are out of fifth grade.
You releated to somebody?
I AM sorry you have an open mouth (or pen) and a closed mind.
However, I will defend to the death your right to say anything you want. Even if it's patently stupid or a blatant lie.
Bet - TF is actually entertaining. How can anyone be so completley wrong every time he posts? :lol: I am a lib- nazi, eh?
I think it is quite clear who TF is really - only took me a day to figure it out:rolleyes:
DJofSD
11-09-2006, 10:48 PM
Iggy, Tom, iggy.
Join the growing numbers.
Good idea - TF has offered noting since being re-incarneted and a political hack. Off to IGGY land for him and his mentor.:jump:
TRUEFREEDOM
11-10-2006, 01:10 AM
Truefreedom - you really should read more and think before you post., You have made a total ASS of yourelf several times already. I almost feel sorry for
you. When you pick out people to focus on, you should at least know someting about them, which obviously YOU do not.:lol:
First I'm a lib, then I'm a Nazi!
Ususally when the nut truck drops them off here, they are out of fifth grade.
You releated to somebody?
Nazi's are socialists. Libs are too.
wahhhhhhh True you hurt my feelings WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
PaceAdvantage
11-10-2006, 01:38 AM
Nazi's are socialists. Libs are too.
wahhhhhhh True you hurt my feelings WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
You're gonna have to step it up from this....even for off-topic, this is lame.
PaceAdvantage
11-10-2006, 01:39 AM
The political correctness of this war was controlled by those in power. It appears they were more interested in maintaining power then winning a war.
Why did they feel the need for any level of political correctness. You're fighting a war with people's lives on the line...there is no room for compromise when people's lives are on the line.
The 4th estate is a major player in this, and they shouldn't be....Vietnam Hangover....plain and simple.
Why did they feel the need for any level of political correctness. You're fighting a war with people's lives on the line...there is no room for compromise when people's lives are on the line.
The 4th estate is a major player in this, and they shouldn't be....Vietnam Hangover....plain and simple.
I agree with the first portion of your note. I also agree the 4th estate should have no power in this. Too bad the folks in the administration did not agree with us. Sounds like they managed this mess in Iraq based on the fear of getting poor press. Poor press may result in losing elections, and that is what I said originally.
skate
11-10-2006, 02:11 PM
Running Rummy, had his hands full ,while fighting 2 as in TWO wars at one time.
and then he had the fr..g.. press puss...to deal with.
no body gives the man credit for getting NATO involved in Afgan.or did i miss something..?
and, acounts of his "overhaul" of the Pentagon is far from "a proper call"
TRUEFREEDOM
11-10-2006, 10:10 PM
You're gonna have to step it up from this....even for off-topic, this is lame.
Nope
Nazi's are socialists. Libs are too.
wahhhhhhh True you hurt my feelings WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Baby steps, dude, baby steps.
Read all the words.
http://www.rif.org/
No chid left behind! :lol:
TRUEFREEDOM
11-13-2006, 03:58 PM
Baby steps, dude, baby steps.
Read all the words.
http://www.rif.org/
No chid left behind! :lol:
My steps are bigger than yours dude. Ths is to help you "WALK the WALK" better
Sesame Workshop - Home Page (http://www.sesameworkshop.org/)
PaceAdvantage
11-13-2006, 05:16 PM
My steps are bigger than yours dude. Ths is to help you "WALK the WALK" better
Sesame Workshop - Home Page (http://www.sesameworkshop.org/)
You have to earn the right to make dumb-ass posts like this....you just can't waltz in here with 39 posts to your credit and think you're going to get away with junk like this....even if Tom started it (he's a legend, dontcha know?)
TRUEFREEDOM
11-14-2006, 10:11 AM
i am starting to sense he has lots of notoriaty
JustRalph
11-14-2006, 01:59 PM
wow, what a thread. I have stayed out on purpose. If you want to win this war you have to do one thing.........shut down the press coverage and ship in 100k more troops and give a deadline to Iraq. then when they don't meet it, we own the place.
PA is right about the press. Handcuffs the government in a situation like this. If the same press had been around during WWII we would have never mounted an effort like we did against Germany and Japan. They don't make men like Patton and Ike anymore. Too much self esteem training. Not enough leadership training.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.