The disgrace of the congress

[Tom]

Nacny Pelosi - the first BITCH of the house - has taken them to new depths of disgrace. Her place in history has been written in stone.
An entire week of wasted time - congress took no action on any pressing issues, and shown the true cowardace of the democrats

A non-binding reslution - just what was the point, other than political reprisal?

No troops are safer today, in fact, they probbly more at risk now that it is official - US doens't support thewar on terror, and has no stomach to face an enemy, We annouced to the world that we arae cowards.

This is what the resolution said" "We think the ar is wrong, we are wasting our time there, our troops are being killed for nothing. But we do not have the stones to do anything about it but talk. Although we have the constitutional power to bring the troops home and out of harm's way, we choose not to becasue we are stinkning cowards. We are willing to allow our soldiers to continue to die for nothing because to bringthem home would put the party of the ASS in danger of being wrong. We say we support our troops but not the mission, but we all now we are just too chicken-shit to bring them home, when the power to do so IS OURS!"

I don't know how anyone of the traitors who voted yes on this can sleep at night, but I , and many others, are taking names, and will never forget the second largest terror attack on our soil - the one yesterday buy the Whore-House of Representatives, led by the biggest BITCH in our history."

For all you Bush haters out there - while he is following a course he believes in, defying all who try to prevent him from achieving what he believes is the right thing, you can sit back and appluad you bunch of cowards who refuse to stand up and take any action for thier beliefs. How can you follows such losers? A bunch of cowards who never once considered a plan for victory and never once did a thing to help our troops. Except totally dis them and sentence them to die for nothing - according to thier vote.

What a disgusting bunch of worthess chickens. While I think it stupid to pull out, I could repsect those who honestly believe the war to be a mistake to take actin and bring home the troops. But not a one of the bastards has the guts to take action. Theses people would have been nazi-sympathizers in France in 1940. No doubt about it, they disgrace the flag.

46 - you can start blaming the dems for all the loss of life in Iraq from now on, because they have the power to stop it and refused to do so.

[boomman]

Having lived in Southern California for 20 years, I am painfully aware of the Pelosi's, Boxer's and Feinstein's of the world. All you have to know about Pelosi is the jumbo jet she ordered at tax payer's expense so she wouldn't be "inconvenienced" into stopping for fuel between Washington and San Francisco!

Boomer

[Light]

Tom

I agree. The Iraq war got the Democrats elected to majority in the first place but now that they are there,they are more concerned about their image than their mission.

[Lefty]

This has been the Dems style for a long time:Symbolism over Substance.

[Show Me the Wire]

Tom

I agree. The Iraq war got the Democrats elected to majority in the first place but now that they are there,they are more concerned about their image than their mission.

Is the above expression really a surprise to anyone, except to sec and hcap?

[Secretariat]

Is the above expression really a surprise to anyone, except to sec and hcap?

Why would that be a surprise to me?

[Show Me the Wire]

Why would that be a surprise to me?

Because you actually believe the Dem B.S.

[Secretariat]

Because you actually believe the Dem B.S.

I beleive the Dem's made a mistake here not immediately going for a binding resolution. I'm not one for non-binding resolutions (though Republican Congressman Abraham Lincoln pushed for them during the Mexican War, and Freedom Fries Republican Congressman Walter Jones voted FOR this non-binding resolution). This vote was as a result of the last election to make a statement to the President we're sick of your failures, and sick of the corruption.

The Dem's know they don't have the votes to override a Presidential veto, and wanted their voices heard. They did, and anyone of any party had the ability to voice their opinion. Big deal I don't think it means Tom needs to resort to the typical name calling tactics of the third person in line for the Presidency, but it's what is expected.

You also lump all Democrats as one that I support. Far from it. For example I cannot support Hillary Clinton and certainly not Nelson from Nebraska.

Frankly, I wish Bush had just followed his own advice and actually listened to his General's recommendations about increasing troops in Iraq. Both Abizaid and Casey made it quite clear before GW decided to make it a political thing.

"The longer we and the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq's security, it lengthens the time that the Government of Iraq has to make the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias...And the other thing is that they continue to blame us for all of Iraq's problems, which at face are their problems. It has always been my view that a heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq in the long run.''

- General Casey


"I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps Commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.''

- General Abizaid

[Tom]

I think we can now dispense with the old party titles - after this vote, we now have those who voted against it and traitors.

[Show Me the Wire]

sec:

I understand you do not support each and every dem politician, but you believe the dem party line. As you said you are disappointed by the dem non-binding resolution. Therefore, you are surprised by their ineffective action regarding Iraq, because you believed the dems would actually demonstrate leadership regarding Iraq.

The dems never articulated a plan prior to the mid-term elections regarding Iraq, this has been pointed out numerous times on this forum. The dems only plan was to say the administration's plan is a failure, without offering any practical alternatives. Well it seems there alternative is to pass non-binding resolutions criticizing the administration.

Same plan as before, criticize without offering any solutions, only now they criticize with non-binding resolutions instead of sound bite rhetoric in the media. Nah, it is still the same still rhetoric without substance.

But rhetoric without substance resulted in the dems winning the mid-term election, along with the repub congress failing to address the ILLEGAL immigration issue, so why should the dems actually try to lead when they can get sheeple to believe rhetoric is better than actual leadership action.

[Tom]

SMTW...what is really distrubing in not one dem has/had a plan for victory.
the quesion now is, suppose a dem win the WH in 2008 and were are attacked again, worse than 9-11.

Would you support a military response with dems at the helm?

I wouldn't. I'd stay out of tall buildings until 2012.

[Show Me the Wire]

Tom:

I agree very disturbing. I also, agree I would not support any military action under dems. I believe it will result in the waste of lives just like prior dem administrations. i.e. JFK, LBJ, Jimmy's (worse president of all time) failed Iranian hostage rescue mission and Clinton's military failures.

Hmmm, after posting these thoughts maybe there is a reason dems always expect military defeats. involving the useless sacrifice of young American lifes.

[wonatthewire1]

Since we are both looking for the wire, a question: You mention from "JFK - Clinton" about failed military adventures...would you go so far as to say that the last effective one was WWII or would you argue that our current military efforts have been the most recent success?

[Tom]

WWII, our last real victory. Even then, we stopped too sooon - we should have taken out Russia when Patton was ready to roll. But we were not in a good way to continue the long, terrible war by that time.
The Gulf War, outstanding display of military precision, but we stopped way too soon. Essentially, the problems in the mid east today are because we failed to follow through back then.

We no longer have the national guts to wage any kind of winning war. We better stop rattling our sabers, because if called out, we will surley lose a real war. Lucky for us, we have dems in power now - they will eliminate the middle man - war - and go right to surrender.

[46zilzal]

you were one of those guys in high school always coming up to folks :"What did you say?" Always thinking that the fist was the way to settle everything..

Pitifully narrow thinking.

[Tom]

And you were the guy who cut classes the day they covered punctuation! :lol:

46, you arrogant SOB, you have no clue about shit - on any topic or any forum. I'd hate to see your shoes! (Shinola?:eek:)

You were the French guys who welcomed the nazi's with open arms.
Your thinking is the narrowest I have encountered in a human being not in a coma. How many times have you spoken in the luchroom at your hospital and someone "pronounced" you?

[Secretariat]

sec:

I understand you do not support each and every dem politician, but you believe the dem party line.

I vote my conscience, not the Dem party line. More Dem's lean toward my views, but not always - for example ,the Blaanced Budget Amendement. Don't make assumptions.

As you said you are disappointed by the dem non-binding resolution. Therefore, you are surprised by their ineffective action regarding Iraq, because you believed the dems would actually demonstrate leadership regarding Iraq.


I think it is a difficult task. For example, today in the Senate's resolution, the Republican again invoked cloture. The Dem's need a 60 vote minimum to even debate, and even if they pass a binding resolution GW woudl veto it. Problem isn' the Dems doing something. They're trying. The problem is the Republicans want more of the same. Death and Deficits.


The dems never articulated a plan prior to the mid-term elections regarding Iraq, this has been pointed out numerous times on this forum. The dems only plan was to say the administration's plan is a failure, without offering any practical alternatives. Well it seems there alternative is to pass non-binding resolutions criticizing the administration.

This is inaccurate and has been exposed multiple times before. Republicans simply don't lie the plans that werre profferred. Don't pass that misstatement off again.



Same plan as before, criticize without offering any solutions, only now they criticize with non-binding resolutions instead of sound bite rhetoric in the media. Nah, it is still the same still rhetoric without substance.

But rhetoric without substance resulted in the dems winning the mid-term election, along with the repub congress failing to address the ILLEGAL immigration issue, so why should the dems actually try to lead when they can get sheeple to believe rhetoric is better than actual leadership action.

Hysterical. Congress has been in charge of Republicans for the last decade, and the Dem's a month, and now you're moaning that this Congress has done nothing about immigration. What a joke.

[Secretariat]

This has been the Dems style for a long time:Symbolism over Substance.

As opposed to the Republican style? Hypocrisy over Truth?

Read this Lefty. Look what non-binding resolution Boniour tried to pass last year. Look at Bosnia. Look back at Lincoln in the Mexican War. Frankly, the whole point of a non-binding resolution is it is a symbolic statement of oversight from the Congress "hoping" that Executive action will understand that the people's house will be paid attention to by the Executive.

I understand why they have them. They always do nothing.

But please, do READ this article and realize that Republicans have been playing the non-binding resoluition game for the last decade in Congress.

What hypocrisy.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702100006

[46zilzal]

46, you arrogant SOB, you have no clue about shit - on any topic or any forum. I'd hate to see your shoes! (Shinola?:eek:)


Destroy first, never try for a moment to understand. Your type are a dime a dozen, mostly in the blue collar arena. THUGS

[JustRalph]

Destroy first, never try for a moment to understand. Your type are a dime a dozen, mostly in the blue collar arena. THUGS

Apparently you think you are better than the blue collar types huh?

All Blue Collar Types are thugs..........says more about you than anything else.

[46zilzal]

Hardly as I worked as a furniture mover for nine years while paying my tuition. It simply gave me first hand experience with them.

Strange, but the word ALL did not appear ONCE in the content of my post.

[46zilzal]

We are all the product of our life's experiences. I grew up in the heart of the most right wing, fascist leaning area in the entire U.S. : the HOME of the John Birch society, the area that produced such stellar idiots as Ronnie and Tricky Dick, a place where independent thinking was usually met with a line akin to "You are too (young, stupid, inexperienced, uneducated etc. PICK ONE) to be capable of thinking for yourself." LET US DICTATE, er, tell you how to think, act, vote, decide etc., for we KNOW all the answers. Anyone who used their brain to take a situation and critique a point of view was met with some of the same tired labels (one would think there would be more orignality to the fascist types) of beatnick, hippie (insert whatever handy label is today most popular, I guess terrorist or terrorist sympathizer is the current one).

This dictatorial hogwash even permeated into public education as my 'asking the wrong questions' often got me a place in the principal's office. FUNNY THING however, NOT ONCE were they ever able to disprove the content of what I was asking, NOT ONCE.

So whenever I hear the same tired drivel ("We have to destroy _______ rather than try to understand it"), I respond in kind.

[Show Me the Wire]

SEC:

The points worth addressing, I did not blame this congress for failing on immigration. Read my statement again, it is a reason why the repubs lost the mid-term elections.

I have listened to the national dem leaders and the only plan they articulate is the war is being mismanaged, without proposing any real solutions. The only thing they talk about is a time table for withdrawal. That is not a solution.

If you are comfortable being a sheeple that is your prerogative.

Remember my original post which you responded to was about you and other believers being disappointed about the dem's lack of forceful action, nothing more and nothing less.

Anything else is simply a distraction from the original topic about disappointment in the dem's weak actions.

[Show Me the Wire]

COme oN guyS DoNcha no oNly liBeRal sheeple are indepenDEnt ThinkerS ;) :bang:

[46zilzal]

Independent thinking is a part of some people's intellect. It has nothing to do with political affiliation.

[Lefty]

you were one of those guys in high school always coming up to folks :"What did you say?" Always thinking that the fist was the way to settle everything..

Pitifully narrow thinking.
When somebody pokes you first, it often is.

[Show Me the Wire]

Independent thinking is a part of some people's intellect. It has nothing to do with political affiliation.

Is that what you meant in your post about your youth and your experience with right wing thinking? Seems to me, the terminology, right wing denotes a political affiliation, especially when you mention certain names.

I understood your post to state right wing people dictate how you should think, and not that right wing people are independent thinkers like liberal people, as you now claim.

[Tom]

Independent thinking is a part of some people's intellect. It has nothing to do with political affiliation.

Were you once exposed to independent thinkers as well? Because, obvioulsy, YOU are not one. One dimensional ASS, for sure. But a thinker? :lol:

[Tom]

Doctor Demento posted:

"Anyone who used their brain to take a situation and critique a point of view was met with some of the same tired labels (one would think there would be more orignality to the fascist types) of beatnick, hippie (insert whatever handy label is today most popular,"



You mean like "rutebega?" :lol:
You are such a joke - a demeneted old fart. And about as welcome.

[Snag]

The problem is the Republicans want more of the same. Death and Deficits.


Sec, at least you have the guts to say what you believe. I find it sick that you think anyone wants another to die regardless of their party. Your hate came out again and it's getting old and disgusting.

[JustRalph]

Hardly as I worked as a furniture mover for nine years while paying my tuition. It simply gave me first hand experience with them.

Strange, but the word ALL did not appear ONCE in the content of my post.

the bold part says it all. You have a serious "us" and "them" problem........you really do think you are better than "blue collar" types.

Amazing......! You reveal yourself more every day.

[Lefty]

sec, non-binding resolutions are a stupid waste of time regardless of which party does them. If the dems are so set against the war why don't they cut the funding? Answer: Cause like always, the want to slice the bologna from both ends.

zilly, now you're calling Reagan an idiot?

[Secretariat]

Sec, at least you have the guts to say what you believe. I find it sick that you think anyone wants another to die regardless of their party. Your hate came out again and it's getting old and disgusting.

You again mischaracterize what I said. I am not accusing any person of deliberately seeking the death of any individual. I am saying by Republicans "wanting" to continue with these policies of escalation they are going to lead to more Death and to more Deficits. We've lost 3000+ and 20000+ wounded, and countless Iraqi civilians who we're supposed to be building a better world for. We've had numerosus scandals according to the latest governemnt audit and a half trillion flushed down the toilet for a civil war. Death and Deficits is exactly what these Republica npolcies have given us. Republicans wanting to continue with this course are going to bring more death and deficits. If you ask them when it'll be over, they cannot tell you only that they honor the sacrifices of those who have lost their lives. If you ask them how much it will cost in the future, they do not know. If you ask them what victory even means anymore, you'll get a dozen different answers.

You may see me passionate about this, because I do hate to see courageous men and women's lives wasted, and our national treasure looted for this.

[Secretariat]

sec, non-binding resolutions are a stupid waste of time regardless of which party does them. If the dems are so set against the war why don't they cut the funding? Answer: Cause like always, the want to slice the bologna from both ends.

zilly, now you're calling Reagan an idiot?

Lefty,

I agree non-binding resolutions are a waste of time. I wish BOTH parties would do away with them in the rules.

Dem's will make a move to limit funding of the escalation coming up, but they do not have the votes. One good thing is it will put everyone on record. As GW states, "I welcome debate". Even if they did have the votes GW would veto.

Interesting proposal by John Edwards today saying that the IWR war authorization is no longer constitutionally applicable because the reasons cited in it have been met.

[Secretariat]

SEC:

I have listened to the national dem leaders and the only plan they articulate is the war is being mismanaged, without proposing any real solutions. The only thing they talk about is a time table for withdrawal. That is not a solution.

If you are comfortable being a sheeple that is your prerogative.



I disagree here. There have been multiple plans set forth from different Dem's from dividing Iraq into separate state to diplomacy with neighboring nations to following the key recommendations of the Iraqi Study Group.

There have been benchmarks that the Iraqi government was supposed to meet suggested way back when Kerry was running.

The Iraqi War Resolution authorizes this:

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

As to the first it has been revealed that Iraq posed no national security threat to the US, and the current Iraqi government certainly does not.

As to the second, the US Sec. Council has no existing resolutions regarding the current govt. of Iraq.

....

It is time for Iraqis to stand up and fight. It is their Civil War, not ours. The majority of Iraqis want us out. THe majority of Americans want us out. Not getting out defies BOTH the will of the majority of both nations.

A phased withdrawal is not defeat. It is in fact what the majority of both nations want. A phased withdrawal allows Iraq to determine it's own course.
We are better served strengthening our forces in Afghanistan in the hunt for Bin Laden then in fighting in between a Sunni-Shia Civil War.

I don't expect you to agree. But IMO you're wrong.

[Snag]

You again mischaracterize what I said. I am not accusing any person of deliberately seeking the death of any individual. I am saying by Republicans "wanting" to continue with these policies of escalation they are going to lead to more Death and to more Deficits.

Sec, that is NOT what you said and you know it. Your spin won't change what you said. Your own words: "The problem is the Republicans want more of the same. Death and Deficits."

I can not find any mischaracterization this time or any time.

[Tom]

I agree with you Snag - he said it plain as day. Now he's back-peddling. Must be getting ready to throw HIS hat in the ring! :eek:

Sec - yup - dems have a lot of -plans - not a one of them ever considered VICTORY.

The Iraq Surrender group - what a group of losers. No wonder Sec loves them. But even BAKER says to give the surge a chance.

[Tom]

Amazing......! You reveal yourself more every day.


And the more he revels, the less there is! Deep down inside, he is very shallow. Get me his address - I want to FedEx him a peanut butter sandwhich.

[PaceAdvantage]

the bold part says it all. You have a serious "us" and "them" problem........you really do think you are better than "blue collar" types.

Yeah, the them reference slapped me across the face as well....it's really amazing how differently some folks think....

[PaceAdvantage]

Big deal I don't think it means Tom needs to resort to the typical name calling tactics of the third person in line for the Presidency, but it's what is expected.

Sigh.


ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

[Tom]

Gee Sec, I missed that comment - probably because I don't usually raed your posts past the first line. I had that one flagged as a "401" but you expanded it. Now it's a "734."

I guess my treatment of the third in line is somehow worse than YOUR treatment of the second in line, or even the one at the head of the line.

So far, her leadership in the house has been a joke. Like her entire political career.

[lsbets]

Am I the only one who think Sec has fantasies about being a politician and practices spinning, lying, and misleading here on the PA board?

[Tom]

I think he's Joe Biden.

[Show Me the Wire]

sec:

Difference between a time table for withdrawal and a phased withdrawal. Please tell me the dem plan, that I must have missed regarding a phase withdrawal. I believe a phase withdrawal is the administration's plan as you reiterated above. The withdrawal will happen in phases as the goals are met. The only plan I've heard from the dems is set a time table. Big difference.

And yes the goals are taking longer to meet than expected, so does it mean we should set a specific time limit and leave any way?

[Steve 'StatMan']

Too much thinking and too much to say, type, and post. Too much time spent on all this.

Quick thoughts - right now, the only thing resembling what we have is 'the ointment'. We've got a lot of vocal politicians and popular people who feel they are being 'independent thinkers' and collectively proud of being the 'fly in the ointment'. But unless and until they can get us some better medicine or find the real cure, they are no better than those disease carrying flies, that by their own indepent actions, for better or worse, ruin the only known treatment option available, other than just stopping treatment and hoping that the problem will just go away on its own.

Measure twice, cut once.
Measure once, cut twice.
Measure never, cut forever.
Measure forever, cut never.

[lsbets]

I think he's Joe Biden.

That's why he always uses other people words! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Secretariat]

I agree with you Snag - he said it plain as day. Now he's back-peddling. Must be getting ready to throw HIS hat in the ring! :eek:

Sec - yup - dems have a lot of -plans - not a one of them ever considered VICTORY.

The Iraq Surrender group - what a group of losers. No wonder Sec loves them. But even BAKER says to give the surge a chance.

Tom,

Please define what you mean by victory in Iraq.

Snag and Tom,

I know what I said, and I say you are mischaracterizing what I said and you know it. Even after reading my clarification for you, you refuse to accept it. There's nothing more to say on the matter. You don't really want what I meant by the statement, you want your own spin on it. I expected nothing else.

[Secretariat]

Gee Sec, I missed that comment - probably because I don't usually raed your posts past the first line. I had that one flagged as a "401" but you expanded it. Now it's a "734."

I guess my treatment of the third in line is somehow worse than YOUR treatment of the second in line, or even the one at the head of the line.

So far, her leadership in the house has been a joke. Like her entire political career.

Tom,

A female dog is what you referred to her. I can't remember ever resorting to calling Bush or Cheney a "dog". That is name calling. I disagree with both of their policies, but if you can find one post where I've ever called Bush or Cheney a dog, please advise. If I have called them a "dog" I apolgize, and when I've let my anger get the better of me, and called GW a clown I apologize for it, but you won't Tom. You'll never apologize for your constant name calling. PA lets you run rampant in your caustic criticism of others, and that is his perogative. I'd like to see some consistency. If one of us here referred to the President or Vice President as a "dog" we'd be villified here, and frankly rightly so. There are ways to debate and even vent intelligently, but you bring the level of discourse to backstreet banter.

[Secretariat]

sec:

Difference between a time table for withdrawal and a phased withdrawal. Please tell me the dem plan, that I must have missed regarding a phase withdrawal. I believe a phase withdrawal is the administration's plan as you reiterated above. The withdrawal will happen in phases as the goals are met. The only plan I've heard from the dems is set a time table. Big difference.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-usiraq13nov13,0,6032008.story?coll=la-home-headlines

The whole point of timelines is to put pressure on the Iraqis to meet benchmarks. We've done that in the past, and they pretty much ignore them since there is no punitive aspect of actually meeting them. Many Dems want an immediate withdrawal, but most are pushing for a phased withdrawal with certain Iraqi benchmarks met so that they can fight their own civil war, and do what the majority of both Iraqi people and american people want - Get us out of Iraq. You may not like that, but that IS what the majority of people in both countries want.

As you can see by the artcile Biden and Levin hold key leadership positions in Congress and their positions are not that much different than the Iraq Study Group on withdrawal.

sec:

And yes the goals are taking longer to meet than expected, so does it mean we should set a specific time limit and leave any way?

Now, my opinion. I beleive we should. I do not believe in putting our soldiers in harms way perpetually. It is no longer about WMD's or UN resolutions as the Iraq War Resolution authorized, and there is a new government in place, and according to the WH the Iraqi Army is combat ready. The only question is can they do it on their own. It's now the fifth year of what is now a civil war. How long does it take for these people to step up and fight for their own country? Personally, I see nothing wrong with saying we helped you start a democracy, we deposed Hussein, we revealed there are no WMD stockpiles. It is up to you to fight for your country if you want it.

"Democracy is the right of the people to choose their own tyrants."

- James Madison

"No generation has a right to contract debts greater than can be paid off during the course of its own existence."

- George Washington

"I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

- Thomas Jefferson

"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."

-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) (on Bosnia)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX) (on Bosnia)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) (on Bosnia)

"You can support the troops but not the president"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX) (on Bosnia)

"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."

-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) (on Bosnia)

"It's terribly frustrating that there's no endgame here. If the bombing doesn't work, what then? The administration will not answer that question. There's no Plan B."

- Senator John McCain (R-AZ) (on Bosnia)

....

One does get tired of the hypocrisy.

[linrom1]

The fact of the matter is that every single administration, since Jimmy Carter have supported and financed the "Islamic terror" network, created during the Carter administration at the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war.

Let's send the troops home and send Carter to negotiate truce between Sunnis and Shiites. While he is at it maybe he can also help to dismantle the terror network that he and Brezinski started.

[Steve 'StatMan']

For what it's worth, I felt even back at that time that Clinton did the right thing by taking action in Bosnia, one of the few things I did personally agree with. I was disappointed, however, that he didn't do similar in Iraq, despite the same inteligence that G. W. Bush was later given. Lobbing missiles occasionally at Iraq, that did not have the precision of the later missiles, and sticking with a failed Oil For Food program that only made Sadam even more wealthier in secret only punished the masses in Iraq, and helped foster the Anti-American sentiment of the surviving Iraq masses and led to their forming of their clandestined miltias - some intended for Sadam, and now both sides directed at our forces as well as each other.

[Tom]

Tom,

A female dog is what you referred to her.

I am sorry I called her a bitch - TOS prevented me from calling what she really is. If you are interested, I could PM you.

[Tom]

That's why he always uses other people words! :lol: :lol: :lol:

But he is clean.

[JustRalph]

But he is clean.
:lol: :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

If one of us here referred to the President or Vice President as a "dog" we'd be villified here, and frankly rightly so.

Huh? Again, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Have you ever once criticised 46zilzal for all the name calling he has posted here? How many times has he called Bush a "rutabaga," among other things.

Is calling him a dog any worse? I don't think so....

[BIG RED]

I am sorry I called her a bitch - TOS prevented me from calling what she really is. If you are interested, I could PM you.

Cee you next tuesday?

:mad:

[46zilzal]

Huh? Again, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Have you ever once criticised 46zilzal for all the name calling he has posted here? How many times has he called Bush a "rutabaga," among other things.



Actions and IQ fit: he retains the label. Never would put the label of a useful creature on that pile of dung!

[PaceAdvantage]

See what I mean....

Sec never criticizes this kind of name calling. Only when you call someone who is "two heartbeats away from the Presidency" a name, then he runs into action.

[Lefty]

Tom,

A female dog is what you referred to her. I can't remember ever resorting to calling Bush or Cheney a "dog". That is name calling. I disagree with both of their policies, but if you can find one post where I've ever called Bush or Cheney a dog, please advise. If I have called them a "dog" I apolgize, and when I've let my anger get the better of me, and called GW a clown I apologize for it, but you won't Tom. You'll never apologize for your constant name calling. PA lets you run rampant in your caustic criticism of others, and that is his perogative. I'd like to see some consistency. If one of us here referred to the President or Vice President as a "dog" we'd be villified here, and frankly rightly so. There are ways to debate and even vent intelligently, but you bring the level of discourse to backstreet banter.
Please, also direct this to 46zilly.

[Secretariat]

Huh? Again, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Have you ever once criticised 46zilzal for all the name calling he has posted here? How many times has he called Bush a "rutabaga," among other things.

Is calling him a dog any worse? I don't think so....

You're kidding now.

A bitch is a very derogatory term for a woman. Go up to any woman and say it and you'll be slapped in the face.

Go up to the same woman (or a guy for that matter) and call her (him) a rutabaga and they'll laugh in your face.

Please don't tell me you're comparing the degree of those two words.

Now, as to 46, and his use of rutabaga. I thought it was his own derivative of the slang sometimes using "shrub" for "Bush" which is often used as a derisive play on Bush's last name. A rutabaga however is "a cruciferous plant with a thick bulbous edible yellow root." I thought 46's whole point was the wordplay on plant and Bush and was 46's way of trying to be clever. A bitch is defined as a female dog or a lewd woman.

I don't think it helps any debate to resort to name calling regardless who it is - 46 or Tim, but to call the Speaker of the House a bitch to me significantly crosses the line. Maybe it doesn't for you.

[Tom]

HOW DARE YOU CALL ME TIM!!!

Resorting to name calling is no way to discuss things. I demand an apology!!!
:lol:

[melman]

The use of the word bitch is quite popular among the "artists" who sing today. The sales of this type of music is not confined to males. Maybe Tom should have said "she's and old ho". :jump:

[Secretariat]

The use of the word bitch is quite popular among the "artists" who sing today. The sales of this type of music is not confined to males. Maybe Tom should have said "she's and old ho". :jump:

Are you saying the party of "family values" approves of the use of the word bitch in that music? I;m surprised you'd be that hypocritical to use hip-hop obscenities for your defense of Tim. Nothing wrong wih using the word. I just think it crosses the line because a woman allowed debate over a non-binding resolution on the House floor in which every member was given five minutes to speak.

"Bitch has long been in use to refer to a woman in contempt, as shown in an 1811 dictionary which describes bitch as "the most offensive appellation that can be given to an English woman, even more provoking than that of whore"."

Maybe times have changed, and profanity is more accepted nowadays publicly as Cheney illustrated on the Senate floor not too long ago.

Here is one piece from the TOS of this board:

"The use of profanity is not allowed on the PaceAdvantage.Com Discussion Board. "

[Secretariat]

I read this and thought about it some more, and said forget it. Not worth getting bent out of shape over. If Tom wants to resort to this kind of stuff who really cares.

[Tom]

NYPD Blue standards, Sec.

[lsbets]

I think you might need to up the medication Sec.

[melman]

Meds are in order compare these statements from Sec in two recent posts. "A bitch is a very derogatory term for a woman". Then this one "Nothing wrong with using the word". I believe it was Al and Tipper Gore of the Democratic Party who had a problem with words in music by todays "artists". Of course those two can be forgiven because they are such "caring" people. :jump:

[Secretariat]

Meds are in order compare these statements from Sec in two recent posts. "A bitch is a very derogatory term for a woman". Then this one "Nothing wrong with using the word". I believe it was Al and Tipper Gore of the Democratic Party who had a problem with words in music by todays "artists". Of course those two can be forgiven because they are such "caring" people. :jump:

There is nothing wrong in using the term in free speech. However the TOS on this board you agreed to when signing up for this board prohibits using profanity. I guess you can't understand the difference. Personally, I agree with Al and Tipper Gore and most family value Republicans on the use of profanity in music lyrics. I'm not in favoring of legislating it as criminal activity, but as common sense information to pass on to consumers and parents. They rate movies. Why not music? But this is another thread since you have baited me to go there. If you want to open one about profanity in music feel free to open it.

[PaceAdvantage]

However the TOS on this board you agreed to when signing up for this board prohibits using profanity.

The TOS doesn't spell out exactly what profanity is....they leave it up to me....kind of like the SC's stance on porn....I'll know it when I see it....

With that said, it has always been the enforcement policy of this board, that when it comes to "profanity," to allow anything that has been uttered on the now classic TV show, NYPD Blue....I believe bitch is one of the more mellow words used on that show....

Carry on....

[Secretariat]

The TOS doesn't spell out exactly what profanity is....they leave it up to me....kind of like the SC's stance on porn....I'll know it when I see it....

With that said, it has always been the enforcement policy of this board, that when it comes to "profanity," to allow anything that has been uttered on the now classic TV show, NYPD Blue....I believe bitch is one of the more mellow words used on that show....

Carry on....

So you would have no objection to someone posting Laura Bush is a bitch?

[Show Me the Wire]

I would, sec, because it is not true. However, you got your gratuitous revenge remark in.

But both of us can agree that Sen. Clinton is a bitch of the highest order, correct.

[PaceAdvantage]

So you would have no objection to someone posting Laura Bush is a bitch?

If you want to say that, I'm not going to stop you. You may call her a bitch till the cows come home. I personally don't agree, but I'll protect your right to say so here....

Bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch....there, you happy?

How about a "bullshit" thrown in for good measure...they said that on NYPD Blue as well....

[Secretariat]

If you want to say that, I'm not going to stop you. You may call her a bitch till the cows come home. I personally don't agree, but I'll protect your right to say so here....

Bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch....there, you happy?

How about a "bullshit" thrown in for good measure...they said that on NYPD Blue as well....

It was posed as a question that's all. I've nothing against the lady.

Was just seeing what the level of discourse could be reduced to, that's all. Now I know. More Cheney style than NYPD.

[Tom]

Like a dog with a bone, Sec - you are in day what, 7? of this hissy fit?:lol:
Let it go - I'll give new material before too long, I promise!:rolleyes:

[Lefty]

Women just don't get that upset over the "b" word and frequently use it amongst themselves. Now the "c" word, now that sets em off!

[Tom]

Chick? :p

[Lefty]

Tom, not even close.

[Tom]

chicken head ?
1. n. A girl, often ugly, that no guy wants. "I know you don't like Nancy, she a chicken head fa sho."

[Lefty]

Rhymes with bunt. Women detest the term and i've never heard one call another that.

[46zilzal]

I've never heard one call another that.
you must really live in an Ivory tower.

[chickenhead]

that's actually a very PG rated version of what chickenhead means T...

if I had known I was gonna be hanging around here so many years I would have picked a better handle. It was the name of my (now dead) cockatiel....

[Lefty]

zilly, How so? I've been a casino shift boss and a bartender. Around all sorts of women all my life. While they frequently call ea other the "b" word and even will apply it to themselves; never heard one call another the "c" word. That's been my experience. If it's not yours: they must have a diff class of woman in Canada.