Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 148
  1. #21
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GodSendRain View Post
    Ah, that's the key to politics. You don't have to offer any solution at all, you just have to make the opponent look like he or she has been the worst thing for this country since NAFTA, and your credibility shoots through the ceiling and all the floors above it.
    Not true. Congress sent legislation to the idiot in chief providing for a specific timeline to withdraw from Iraq. The moron in the Oval Office vetoed the bill proclaiming himself as the "decider."

    He's already starting to do a PR campaign to temper people's expectations on the "surge" and its effectiveness when Petraeus gives his report in September.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."


  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    I'm pretty sure there was a recent article in the paper that stated Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama didn't even read the intelligence report. For sure I know Clinton didn't. Time for research

  3. #23
    Forum Member DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotTrotter View Post
    I'm pretty sure there was a recent article in the paper that stated Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama didn't even read the intelligence report. For sure I know Clinton didn't. Time for research
    Why the heck would Obama be allowed to read the intelligence report when he was not even a Federal Employee let alone a Senator at the time? Since he opposed the war at the time based on gut instinct he might be the one person has a real legit stance to his opinion, although he has yet to offer a solution.

    Why do you stick to falsehoods so often even when the facts are clearly pointed out to you? You make your side look like idiots even when there is some good solid ground to stand on. Just like the White House sticking to the WMD justification in the begining when they could easily have made made a strong case for war based on Saddam's violations of the cease fire agreement on 1991. But at least the White House was basing it on intell they thought was legit, your points are shown to be false right now.
    Be for Peace, but don't be for the Enemy!
    -Big Russ

    Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyckftbl View Post
    LOL....dont you people have anything else to do besides b*tch about our b*tching?

  4. #24
    Forum Member KnightnPBIArmor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Beautiful downtown Hortense, GA
    Posts
    745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nail200 View Post
    That's an awesome post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Great Pic
    Thanks, but I can't claim originality: I borrowed it from a post Dave29 made awhile back....

  5. #25
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Not true. Congress sent legislation to the idiot in chief providing for a specific timeline to withdraw from Iraq. The moron in the Oval Office vetoed the bill proclaiming himself as the "decider."

    He's already starting to do a PR campaign to temper people's expectations on the "surge" and its effectiveness when Petraeus gives his report in September.
    As opposed to the morons who refused to come up with a real solution rather than sending a bill they knew was going to be vetoed? A bill they knew they didn't have the votes to override a veto?

    I'm fine with people declaring people morons no matter what my stance, just so long as theydo so with equal opportunity.

  6. #26
    Forum Member DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Not true. Congress sent legislation to the idiot in chief providing for a specific timeline to withdraw from Iraq. The moron in the Oval Office vetoed the bill proclaiming himself as the "decider."

    He's already starting to do a PR campaign to temper people's expectations on the "surge" and its effectiveness when Petraeus gives his report in September.
    There was no solution to the problem in that bill, just a cut off of the problem. There was no compromise in the bill either. Provide a moral solution to the problem not just a cut and run which would be immoral.
    Be for Peace, but don't be for the Enemy!
    -Big Russ

    Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyckftbl View Post
    LOL....dont you people have anything else to do besides b*tch about our b*tching?

  7. #27
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    As opposed to the morons who refused to come up with a real solution rather than sending a bill they knew was going to be vetoed? A bill they knew they didn't have the votes to override a veto?

    I'm fine with people declaring people morons no matter what my stance, just so long as theydo so with equal opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by DennisTheMenace
    There was no solution to the problem in that bill, just a cut off of the problem. There was no compromise in the bill either. Provide a moral solution to the problem not just a cut and run which would be immoral.
    Sure there was a solution. The timetable would have given the Iraq government an incentive to be ready to take control of their country and its affairs. As it stands right now there is no incentive to aggresively start shouldering the burden since they know we are there backing them up. We've been involved in Iraq almost as long as our effort in WW II. How much time do they need? And from what I've read from both sides, the Iraqi citizenry would like us to leave post haste.

    As far as offering a bill with no compromises. What compromise did the WH offer so as to avoid a veto?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  8. #28
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Not true. Congress sent legislation to the idiot in chief providing for a specific timeline to withdraw from Iraq. The moron in the Oval Office vetoed the bill proclaiming himself as the "decider."

    He's already starting to do a PR campaign to temper people's expectations on the "surge" and its effectiveness when Petraeus gives his report in September.
    Well, matter of factly, as Commander in Chief, he is the "decider." Maybe not a great one, sure, but there is a reason why we have one guy in charge of the military and not 536 (535 + the president). It's worked that way for over 200 years, and no one has seen fit to change it.

    However, should Congress ever decide to alter the powers of the executive branch through a legislative process, that's another story entirely. All they have to do is propose a bill that expressly denies a president's ability to call for a deployment of troops without a Declaration of War, and the bill will then go through all the proper channels to go into effect (or perhaps be shot down), as thousands of other bills before it have done.

    But, I do not see this happening, because there are too many in Congress who would like those same executive military powers should they ever get voted into the White House, especially if their party is the minority on Capitol Hill.

    Furthermore, would you not expect any president to start a PR campaign to promote something he or she still believes in? Like it or not, these are not underhanded tactics (and certainly not new tactics).

    Maybe we'll see a party change in 2008, but don't expect a change in political tactics. Both sides swing at the same baseball when they're up to bat. Don't expect a big sigh of relief from me.
    "Yeah, but as I've always said, this country has A.D.D." - Denis Leary

    http://www.lettertogop.com/

  9. #29
    Forum Member FireCapt1951retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Between here and there
    Posts
    790

    Default

    Politician = HYPOCRITE

    Party affiliation makes no difference.

  10. #30
    Forum Member DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireLt1951 View Post
    Politician = HYPOCRITE

    Party affiliation makes no difference.
    There you go. Nothing more needs to be said. Although I hardly doubt that this statement will kill the thread.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  11. #31
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    608

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotTrotter View Post
    Yup, Bush initiated this war with the backing of 99 out of 100 Senators. And a huge majority of the congressmen. Bush didn't do it alone. Eve nthe public supported the war back then. Of course we had just come out of the senseless devastation of the former Yugoslav republic where very few troops were killed. They all expected the same thing to happen in Iraq especially after the victory in Desert Storm. It is funny to see all of the turn coats that show up when the going gets tough. Hillary and Obama were in favor of the war, but now they are not. They are both too wishy washy for me. A couple of opportunist he will say what their people want to hear just to get elected. Those two are just as scary as Gore and Kerry, you just don't know where they stand on the issues.
    Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    That's exactly the point of the intitial post. Gore condemning Bush I for not being hard enough on Saddam. He states emphatically that Saddam is seeking nukes, has strong ties to terrorists, is willing to use his arsonel of chemical weapons, etc... Now he blasts President Bush's reasoning for going to war with Iraq in full contradiction of his very statements in 1992.

    They'll say anything to attempt to destroy those in their way, no matter the cost to our country, and with no backbone to stick with and stand by their stances. It's tough to even get them to define their true stance on the issues.

    Wait one, let me take a poll before taking a stand. LOL

  12. #32
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    608

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DennisTheMenace View Post
    Huh? War in Iraq started in 2003, Obama sworn into office in 2005. How did he vote against going to war in Iraq when he did not join the Senate until we had already been there for almost two years?

    Here is the problem, both sides, from Joe-blow on the street to Senator Whatshisface and Candidate Doubletalk are stuck in the blaim and defend game rather than coming up with a realistic and morally legit solution to the situation at hand. We need to end the violance in Iraq and come get our folks home and on to other jobs in the real war on terror. We can't just pack up and leave the violance behind, that would be immoral. Neither should we accept the status quo and just try to keep things from getting any worse.

    If these folks are smart enough to get themselves into office, they should be smart enough to present somesort of reasonably workable solutions, rather than just to blame or defend the sitution.
    Thanks for that!!!!!

    A big Ditto!!!!!!!

  13. #33
    Forum Member DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireLt1951 View Post
    Politician = HYPOCRITE

    Party affiliation makes no difference.
    Blanket statements usually fail when held up to real facts.

    Frankly you will find tons of politicians who are not hypocrites at all, they are some of the worst because they are so stuck on their own stance that they refuse to compromise and get anything positively done because folks like you will throw that hypocracy label at them. Some of our best statesmen were called "hypocrites" at the time. Some of our worst politicians were not hypocrites they were just out and out liers or to stuborn to adjust.
    Be for Peace, but don't be for the Enemy!
    -Big Russ

    Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyckftbl View Post
    LOL....dont you people have anything else to do besides b*tch about our b*tching?

  14. #34
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nail200 View Post
    Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    That's exactly the point of the intitial post. Gore condemning Bush I for not being hard enough on Saddam. He states emphatically that Saddam is seeking nukes, has strong ties to terrorists, is willing to use his arsonel of chemical weapons, etc... Now he blasts President Bush's reasoning for going to war with Iraq in full contradiction of his very statements in 1992.
    Nails. Do you make this up? Yes Gore blasted Bush the smarter for not pursuing Hussein. By the time Bush the idiot invaded Iraq, Hussein had been defanged via UN inspections. Your desire to draw a nexus of hypocrisy via ten year old statements is seriously flawed to all but the truly blind.

    I could easily make the same case that your hero Bush the idiot is a hypocrite because he ran on a platform of fiscal conservatism, shrinking government, and a non-interventionist foreign policy that specifically was opposed to nation building. Which one of those has he succeeded in fulfilling?
    Last edited by scfire86; 06-15-2007 at 09:03 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  15. #35
    Forum Member FireCapt1951retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Between here and there
    Posts
    790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DennisTheMenace View Post
    Blanket statements usually fail when held up to real facts.

    Frankly you will find tons of politicians who are not hypocrites at all, they are some of the worst because they are so stuck on their own stance that they refuse to compromise and get anything positively done because folks like you will throw that hypocracy label at them. Some of our best statesmen were called "hypocrites" at the time. Some of our worst politicians were not hypocrites they were just out and out liers or to stuborn to adjust.
    In todays context I don't agree at all. I haven't seen or heard a politician that won't bend with the wind or the poll (although there are politicians I don't have much if any knowledge of), which ever suits their need at the time. They rarely if ever actually stick to firm beliefs. Compromise is a good thing but polls are what drives the vast majority of today's politicians. Just my opinion and no one needs to agree.

  16. #36
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireLt1951 View Post
    Compromise is a good thing but polls are what drives the vast majority of today's politicians. Just my opinion and no one needs to agree.
    I won't disagree. In fact I agree wholeheartedly. I read somewhere (so might not be true) that Gore and Bush spent more money on focus groups and pollsters than the combined races of the previous six elections. Again it might be false, but it wouldn't surprise me.

    Any candidate who claims to not be influenced by polls is a liar. If they aren't lying, you can be assured their chances of getting elected are somewhere between slimski and noneski.
    Last edited by scfire86; 06-15-2007 at 09:04 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  17. #37
    Forum Member ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    Nails. Do you make this up?
    Of course he doesn't...he lets Rush Limbaugh do it for him.

  18. #38
    Forum Member DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I read somewhere (so might not be true) that Gore and Bush spent more money on focus groups and pollsters than the combined races of the previous six elections. Again it might be false, but it wouldn't surprise me.
    Probably close to the truth, but it is also probably more of an indication of the work that goes into a modern poll and the prices the pollsters charge than of anything else. To get a good and acurate poll, it costs a lot for the professional pollsters rather than just the college kids calling for minimum wag and than a bunch more for a good scientific analysis. Polls are getting a lot better, but they take up more and more work to get right.
    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Any candidate who claims to not be influenced by polls is a liar. If they aren't lying, you can be assured their chances of getting elected are somewhere between slimski and noneski.
    To a large degree isn't that what we want in a democracy? Don't we want our officials to do what we want 98% of the time. It is that other 2% of the time that seperates the Statesman from the Politician.
    Be for Peace, but don't be for the Enemy!
    -Big Russ

    Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyckftbl View Post
    LOL....dont you people have anything else to do besides b*tch about our b*tching?

  19. #39
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DennisTheMenace View Post
    get right.
    To a large degree isn't that what we want in a democracy? Don't we want our officials to do what we want 98% of the time. It is that other 2% of the time that seperates the Statesman from the Politician.
    I wouldn't disagree. Where I laugh out loud is when a certain president's supporters claim he isn't influenced by polls.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  20. #40
    Forum Member DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I wouldn't disagree. Where I laugh out loud is when a certain president's supporters claim he isn't influenced by polls.
    The President's detractors don't always get their story straight though. They say he is not doing what the people want, and then say he is governing by poll numbers. They say he is an idiot, then claim he has these scams to help his supports that would take a genius to pull off. It is nothing but stupid mud slinging, attack the person rather than the ideas. Attack the ideas but off up no reasonable solution. It is why this coming election seems to be a toss up. There are monetary front runners, but no one with a real vision and ideas out there yet.
    Be for Peace, but don't be for the Enemy!
    -Big Russ

    Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyckftbl View Post
    LOL....dont you people have anything else to do besides b*tch about our b*tching?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Has Gore lost it?
    By Dalmatian90 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-17-2007, 01:21 PM
  2. Mr. Clarke and the 9-11-01 hearings...
    By E40FDNYL35 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 04-02-2004, 08:05 PM
  3. Gore brand vapor barrier
    By Firefighter430 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-06-2002, 06:07 AM
  4. IAFF Endorses Al Gore
    By huntere6 in forum Fire Politics
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 03-02-2001, 08:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts