erynthered Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 http://www.gop.com/Default.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 facts suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Partisan rhetoric. Shocking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Nice. I love the Traffic playing in the background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 16, 2005 Author Share Posted November 16, 2005 Partisan rhetoric. Shocking. 504760[/snapback] I knew you'd like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 (edited) I knew you'd like it. 504932[/snapback] That whole "yeah, but your guy" argument is beyond ridiculous. Way to shift the focus of the debate GOP. There's a reason the founding fathers despised political parties, and I'm begining to appreciate it more and more every day. The bottom line is that a precision tactical airstrike is a bit different than an under-manned, under-eqipped invasion. I do know that that the airstrike didn't directly cause the death of 2000 + US servicemen. It was a GOP president who sent them in there, and now that it's killing them politically,so they're trying to shift focus to the Dems. Bloody brilliant. Why doesn't the GOP majority in Congress restore some of the money to NYC that they just pulled out from underneath them? Why did the GOP fund a bridge to nowhere in Alaska? [EDIT: Despite the threats of resignation by the Alaskan Senator for "discriminating" against the state that received 1/24 of the country's transportation funding, I just read that funding for the bridge to nowhere was dropped. Wonder if the Senator will now resign now that his state has been discriminated against ] And why in God's name are non-profits being formed to foot the bill for medical treatments and prosthetic limbs for servicemen who return home injured or maimed? The least they could do is provide enough funding to take care of the brave men and women who volunteered to help defend this country! But yeah. Let's blame the Dems. Idiots. Edited November 17, 2005 by Campy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 I'm sick of both of them. While both parties are doing whatever it is they are (or are not) doing, the problems surrounding us are not changing, whether they be internal or external to our borders. Doesn't make any difference who is in charge. If the paries can not work together to actually SOLVE something, or at least try - instead of this rhetorical grandstanding doesn't accomplish a thing BS we see everyday, I have no use whatsoever for them. There are voices of reason on both sides of the aisle, and some smart people out there. But, are the cable shows (any that anyone actually watches) going to give THEM any time? No. Life is not a reality show, no matter what we are being fed. Social Security is still out there, terrorism and world instability is still out there, trade deficits are still out there, energy requirements are still out there... Were I ever to have the opportunity, I would much rather be remembered in history for what I had accomplished. Not how many times I got elected. Fugg all of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Fugg all of them. 505074[/snapback] I don't pick on the Dems as much because 1- they're the minority party, and 2- there are more anti-Dem GOP lemmings posting regularly on PPP than there are anti-GOP Dem lemmings. (Most) Dems are scumbags who want to get their fingers into your wallets and (most of) the GOP are criminals. Take your pick... I wish that political parties were made unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 I don't pick on the Dems as much because 1- they're the minority party, and 2- there are more anti-Dem GOP lemmings posting regularly on PPP than there are anti-GOP Dem lemmings. (Most) Dems are scumbags who want to get their fingers into your wallets and (most of) the GOP are criminals. Take your pick... I wish that political parties were made unconstitutional. 505087[/snapback] I, and many others I know work for our country. However that sounds, so be it. Not too many appointed or elected people I know of do, unless there is something in it for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 I was vocally against this war, this way, at this time, from the start. Virtually everyone on the right said or implied I was unpatriotic, I didn't support the troops, I wasn't an American, I should move to France. It pissed me off to no end, but I didn't have to win any elections. Politicians were terrified of that, and rightly so. I felt more Democrats caved than should have, and I was embarrassed for some that were bullied. But it was understandable under the political climate that the Bush Administration had successfully created at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 I felt more Democrats caved than should have, and I was embarrassed for some that were bullied. 505168[/snapback] Because you have so much in common with this incredibly corrupt political party? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Because you have so much in common with this incredibly corrupt political party? 505182[/snapback] Well, there aren't many Democrats I like these days. I wouldn't mind Joe Biden. But, of course, you don't like anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 http://www.gop.com/Default.aspx 504739[/snapback] Democrats should not be held responsible for what they say or do. It's not their fault. It's Bush's fault. Somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Democrats should not be held responsible for what they say or do. It's not their fault. It's Bush's fault. Somehow. 505400[/snapback] Yup. The Dems are the Commanders-in-Chief who ordered an under-manned and underequipped invasion. That was Bush? Bush should not be held responsible for what he said or did. It's not his fault. It's the Dems fault. Somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Yup. The Dems are the Commanders-in-Chief who ordered an under-manned and underequipped invasion. That was Bush? Bush should not be held responsible for what he said or did. It's not his fault. It's the Dems fault. Somehow. 505596[/snapback] So....you don't have a problem with the decision to go to war, just with the preparations and invasion strategy? I had thought you were in the other camp. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 So....you don't have a problem with the decision to go to war, just with the preparations and invasion strategy? I had thought you were in the other camp. My bad. 505607[/snapback] No, I'm not OK with the US breaking international law and numerous treaties because... Oh, I dunno. Maybe because the leader of another nation threatened harm upon another's dad once upon a time? But the thing that all of the Bushies keep failing to recognize is that there's a world of difference between passing a resolution for diplomatic posturing and ordering an invasion. The fact that they were under-manned and underequipped is just a case-in-point on the incompetence of the president and his cronies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 The fact that they were under-manned and underequipped...505611[/snapback] Based on what? Again, what do you think is the correct OB for invading and occupying Iraq? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 But the thing that all of the Bushies keep failing to recognize is that there's a world of difference between passing a resolution for diplomatic posturing and ordering an invasion. So the Dems green lighted the invasion because they thought it was only for 'diplomatic posturing'? Thanks for the chuckle, but considering all the statements seen in the video, that's just crapola. Besides, Congress authorized the invasion, Bush threatened it, and Saddam called our bluff. What are you gonna do? Pack up and go home? That's not gonna help the GWOT. The fact that they were under-manned and underequipped is just a case-in-point on the incompetence of the president and his cronies. 505611[/snapback] No argument there. Iraq is FUBAR and the blame belongs to Bush's gang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 No, I'm not OK with the US breaking international law and numerous treaties because... Oh, I dunno. Maybe because the leader of another nation threatened harm upon another's dad once upon a time?505611[/snapback] Yeah, that's why it happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Yeah, that's why it happened. 505632[/snapback] I just need the "Bush started this war so that Cheney and his 'Big Oil' buddies at Haliburton could profit" and my day will be complete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts