Joey Balls Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 And if Bush does veto, it will officially relagate the so called Republican/Conservative "revolution" to the dung heap it so richly deserves. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070329/pl_nm/...a_congress_dc_2
molson_golden2002 Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 And if Bush does veto, it will officially relagate the so called Republican/Conservative "revolution" to the dung heap it so richly deserves. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070329/pl_nm/...a_congress_dc_2 Bravo to the Senate! As to this Conservative Revolution, I think its already been beaten back into its little corner. It will never die, and maybe its good it doesn't, but it will be back in another form. David Brooks has an interesting op-ed in the Times today about the future of Conservatism. He argues that the small government platform is a real loser politically and they need to evolve. Conservatives evolving! LOL. Anyway: http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/opinion/29brooks.html
DC Tom Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 What, do you two have a timshare on the same thought or something? Siamese twins joined at the rant? Jesus...
Joey Balls Posted March 29, 2007 Author Posted March 29, 2007 As to this Conservative Revolution, I think its already been beaten back into its little corner. It will never die, and maybe its good it doesn't, but it will be back in another form. David Brooks has an interesting op-ed in the Times today about the future of Conservatism. He argues that the small government platform is a real loser politically and they need to evolve. Conservatives evolving! LOL. Anyway: http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/opinion/29brooks.html Well ever since the takeover in '94 they just keep shooting themselves in the foot with one strategic blunder (shutting down the government, Lewinsky, Ken Starr, pre-emptive war, Terry Schiavo, Harriet Miers, Katrina, Conaleeza Rice etc) after another. You know it's bad for the conservative movement when a kook like Gingrich is revered. Didn't he once say women couldn't be in a fox hole because it's biologically unsafe? And this was once the leader of a party that still goes out of their way to debunk global warming. Weird Science.
molson_golden2002 Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 What, do you two have a timshare on the same thought or something? Siamese twins joined at the rant? Jesus... How could we possibly both have opinions about the most important issue of the day, namely, the war. Wow, what a the chances? Tom, is the air pollution in DC clouding your brain?
erynthered Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 What, do you two have a timshare on the same thought or something? Siamese twins joined at the rant? Jesus... They each own stock in Peanuts. They're pumped about that 25 billion. Or was it...Peanut brains. Go figure.
DC Tom Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 How could we possibly both have opinions about the most important issue of the day, namely, the war. Wow, what a the chances? Tom, is the air pollution in DC clouding your brain? It's more the giggling over it like little schoolgirls I'm talking about. Hell, Coli's more anti-war than you two bozos...but he at least puts some thought into his opinions.
Ramius Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 What, do you two have a timshare on the same thought or something? Siamese twins joined at the rant? Jesus... well, SOMEONE needs to make up for the void of retardedness since HA hasnt been around.
Joey Balls Posted March 29, 2007 Author Posted March 29, 2007 It's more the giggling over it like little schoolgirls I'm talking about. Hell, Coli's more anti-war than you two bozos...but he at least puts some thought into his opinions. Don't be a toolbox Tommy and express your valued opinion on the Senate vote.
DC Tom Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 Don't be a toolbox Tommy and express your valued opinion on the Senate vote. Same opinion I had on the House vote, albiet not as strong (since the timeline is March, not September, hence it's not as much transparent political pandering).
DC Tom Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 well, SOMEONE needs to make up for the void of retardedness since HA hasnt been around. HA's been around...he just refuses to hijack any more threads with us unless they've been started by JSP.
Joey Balls Posted March 29, 2007 Author Posted March 29, 2007 Same opinion I had on the House vote, albiet not as strong (since the timeline is March, not September, hence it's not as much transparent political pandering). Um ok...can we accept that? Our judges have conferred and after some deliberation it is pretty clear to them that your response is the usual cheese you sling up on a daily basis. But thank you anyway.
VABills Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 You know it's bad for the conservative movement when a kook like Gingrich is revered. Didn't he once say women couldn't be in a fox hole because it's biologically unsafe? How's that different then the former Secretary of the Navy who said, "Women shouldn't be in the miltary, they should be barefoot and pregnant at home". This was during the whole tailhook thing when he basically also said the female pilots got what they asked for and deserved. Of couse he is now your new dem senator from Virginia. What a guy? Guess it's okay for someone you elect but not the repubs elect. Of course I wouldn't vote for either one, but hyprocisy is thy name.
GG Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 Um ok...can we accept that?Our judges have conferred and after some deliberation it is pretty clear to them that your response is the usual cheese you sling up on a daily basis. But thank you anyway. Run out of pasta, already? Can you spare a synapse to think what the two chambers' bills really are? The House vote was a close one, and only happened after Pelosi stuffed it with pork to line up reluctant Dems. Reps from both houses didn't oppose nor filibuster because they know a veto is coming. If veto wasn't certain, these bills don't make it off the floor (or even our of committees), because Reps would block them and center-right Dems who were elected on more conservative platforms in Nov wouldn't back them. But, carry on with your happy day.
Joey Balls Posted March 29, 2007 Author Posted March 29, 2007 Run out of pasta, already? Can you spare a synapse to think what the two chambers' bills really are? The House vote was a close one, and only happened after Pelosi stuffed it with pork to line up reluctant Dems. Reps from both houses didn't oppose nor filibuster because they know a veto is coming. If veto wasn't certain, these bills don't make it off the floor (or even our of committees), because Reps would block them and center-right Dems who were elected on more conservative platforms in Nov wouldn't back them. But, carry on with your happy day. You missed the point Gekko! Both house and senate have opposed Bush with a timeline by a majority. That's a first! The old republicrap, rubber stamp congress is no longer the rule of the day as I hope you witnessed last November and government is slowly reaching the same point as the majority of people in this country. Oh happy day! In the end though I think what will end this war is the same thing that ended Viet Nam.......a lingering feeling among the ranks that the situation is not only hopeless but pointless.
GG Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 You missed the point Gekko! Both house and senate have opposed Bush with a timeline by a majority. That's a first!The old republicrap, rubber stamp congress is no longer the rule of the day as I hope you witnessed last November and government is slowly reaching the same point as the majority of people in this country. Oh happy day! In the end though I think what will end this war is the same thing that ended Viet Nam.......a lingering feeling among the ranks that the situation is not only hopeless but pointless. Your blatant ignorance of how Washington works shouldn't surprise anyone here. The bills are political pandering to the bases, and even Dems weren't going to support them if they weren't laden with pork. Nice way to eat the cake. Knowing that there's ZERO chance of becoming law, the Dem Hillpeople can go back to the constituents and tell the ignorant masses that they either fought against the war or tried to bring bacon to the home district, but evil Bush took it away. Let's see what Pelosi & Reid drag to the floor that Bush signs, before you and the other dimbulbs declare victory in Congress. Nice analogy to Vietnam. How did that one fare with respect to confidence in the military and the US?
Joey Balls Posted March 29, 2007 Author Posted March 29, 2007 Your blatant ignorance of how Washington works shouldn't surprise anyone here. The bills are political pandering to the bases, and even Dems weren't going to support them if they weren't laden with pork. Nice way to eat the cake. Knowing that there's ZERO chance of becoming law, the Dem Hillpeople can go back to the constituents and tell the ignorant masses that they either fought against the war or tried to bring bacon to the home district, but evil Bush took it away. Let's see what Pelosi & Reid drag to the floor that Bush signs, before you and the other dimbulbs declare victory in Congress. Nice analogy to Vietnam. How did that one fare with respect to confidence in the military and the US? And your inability to be unable to recognize a groundswell of anti-war sentiment among most in the country shouldn't come as a shocker to anyone here as well.
DC Tom Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 Um ok...can we accept that?Our judges have conferred and after some deliberation it is pretty clear to them that your response is the usual cheese you sling up on a daily basis. But thank you anyway. What, it's somehow less valid because it does not include schoolgirl giggling? Because I'm actually anti-war, whereas you're merely "anti-us-getting-involved-in-the-war", and you can't even comprehend the distinction? Because I realzie that an arbitrarily defined pullout not goal-oriented will further destroy our foreign policy even worse than has already been done, whereas you and your fellow retards somehow believe that, in leaving Iraq to the vultures, we'll somehow restore our standing in the international community and leadership position in the world...in all ignorance of the very obvious point that the first issue the international community would need leadership on is the disaster in Iraq we'd cause by pulling out arbitrarily!!! Great plan. Have you thought any of your opinions through beyond their immediate ramifications?
GG Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 And your inability to be unable to recognize a groundswell of anti-war sentiment among most in the country shouldn't come as a shocker to anyone here as well. Then Pelosi & Reid should have absolutely no problem in presenting Bush with a simple bill cutting off funding for the Iraqi theater, right? Once sentence, one figure $0.
Recommended Posts