|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
07-30-2007, 08:55 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I think we are beyond the point of WHY we went over there the enemy is there and that is where we are fighting them ps... I think Bush is too liberal.
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ 
|
|
#2
07-30-2007, 09:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#3
07-31-2007, 10:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
[quote=Pillow Pants]Couldn't agree more.
PP...you and I scoffed at each other's comments weeks ago about similar topics, but this is too hard to pass up again. Bush is now too liberal? Bush is the classic neo-con..you guys always can't fall back on Reagan you know. Bush is still pro guns, pro oil, pro war, pro religion, anti choice, anti gay rights, anti education, anti arts....etc.... I'm sure you abhor all that I support ( well..except beer and horseracing), but don't ever call Bush too "Liberal" because of immigration and a 3 TRillion dollar budget excess...that is an insult to all Liberals
__________________
"but there's just no point in trying to predict when the narcissits finally figure out they aren't living in the most important time ever." hi im god quote
|
|
#4
08-01-2007, 01:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
08-01-2007, 05:53 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I read the Washington Post article, which I think does a pretty decent job putting the quote in context- as usual, the full story is more complicated than a sound-bite (like Danzig, I didn't want to listen to the full speech- I get bored, too.
 ). Here's the link to the print article:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...001380_pf.html From what I can tell, the "problem" Clayburn was referring to was that progress will make it more difficult for Democratic leaders to pass legislation setting a timetable for bringing the troops home, because there would be more moderate-to-conservative Dems in Congress who would then favor keeping the soldiers there longer. I don't think he was referring to the elections; I think he was referring to the direction of the US strategy in Iraq and passing legislation on it- as few Americans seem to grasp, you really need 60 votes to get anything done in Congress. It was unfortunately worded, in that the right-wing media is always tickled pink by the opportunity to take something utterly out of context and now all sorts of conservative sites are yelling that Clayburn hates America but yes, positive progress in the war will continue to complicate legislative progress in bringing the troops home. And yes, taking quotes out of context goes both ways; the right-wingers are just better at it- remember "I was for the troops before I was against them?" or whatever the Kerry flap was- also taken utterly out of context as the original quote addressed paying for the war by repealing Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#6
08-01-2007, 06:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I think there is irony when Bush fails fiscally by running over budget by funding ( over funding) a war that they chose, that that is a liberal act. I don't think the right can have it both ways....If you believe the war is justified, then fund it, but don't call Bush a Liberal when your cause causes the huge defecit.
__________________
"but there's just no point in trying to predict when the narcissits finally figure out they aren't living in the most important time ever." hi im god quote
|
|
#7
08-01-2007, 08:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
08-01-2007, 08:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#9
08-01-2007, 10:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
"but there's just no point in trying to predict when the narcissits finally figure out they aren't living in the most important time ever." hi im god quote
|
|
#10
08-01-2007, 10:13 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I'll post a link to "The Fight Over Appropriations: Myths and Reality," but here's the pertinent part about the $20 billion: <<Despite the Administration’s sharp criticism of the planned congressional appropriations levels, the overwhelming bulk of the $53.1 billion increase in appropriations that Congress plans for 2008 — 81 percent of it — consists of increases the Administration itself has requested in military and homeland security programs. • The main dispute between the Administration and Congress is over a $21 billion difference in domestic appropriations. • The Administration proposes to cut these programs $16 billion below the 2007 levels (after adjusting for inflation) and threatens to veto bills that do not contain these cuts. Congress would reject these cuts and instead provide a modest increase for these programs of $5 billion, or 1.4 percent. The main dispute between Congress and the Administration is thus whether to cut programs funded in domestic appropriations bills, not whether to make large increases in them. • Under the funding levels that Congress plans, domestic discretionary programs would grow more slowly than revenues, and thus would not create pressure for tax increases.>> That $20 billion is actually found by Bush's request to cut $16 billion from domestic programs, while the Dems want to raise it $5 billion from current levels. They're adding the cut and the proposed actual raise together. Pretty misleading, and doesn't at all address the big increases in defense and Homeland Security Bush does want, none of which are going to the soldiers overseas, as that is considered emergency spending. And more: <In other words, the bulk of the allegedly irresponsible increase in funding for appropriated programs reflects the President’s own request for additional military and security funding. The increase that congressional leaders plan for domestic discretionary programs is quite small. The notion that this modest domestic increase of $5 billion, which follows several years of cuts in these programs, could have a noticeable effect on the $14 trillion U.S. economy is not credible. Nor is the claim that funding for domestic discretionary programs would put significant pressure on the deficit and force a tax increase, since these programs would grow less rapidly than either the economy or tax revenues. > Once again, a few extra minutes spent researching something can yield a much more complicated picture. Here's the link to the whole article: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#11
08-01-2007, 10:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#12
08-01-2007, 05:51 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
[quote=GBBob]
Quote:
|
|
#13
07-30-2007, 09:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Enemy?? Who is the enemy?? Serioulsy, we invaded a country and are now fighting insurgents, and to make it worse terrorists are now occupying the country. Weren't most of our "enemies" in SA and Afghanistan.?? This is quite a cluster we got on our hands now and it was not done by a liberal president. A liberal, progressive president would not have invaded a country with the mental capacity of a wild west, 1800's cowboy who wanted nothing but a war. Please, I'm a liberal who thinks totally opposite of this president who got us in this cluster ****. This so called "liberal" president had the backing of almost every American right after 9/11. Myself included. We wanted to get those responsible and bring some kind of relief for those families and all Americans. What did he do with that backing? Invaded a country that was no threat to the US, while basically allowing OB to run free. And during this time play the American people with fear tactics which somehow has worked with some. WHAT A JOKE
|
|
#14
07-31-2007, 12:11 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
if i remember, the battle for afghanistan (don't hear much about it now) was to find these terrorists and bring them to justice.
the iraqi invasion was based on misleading info (poor colin powell) and has become the quagmire that was expected. iraq is an underdeveloped country sitting on massive oil reserves and is also a very strategic place for permanent u.s. bases that the saudis really want no part of. why? because those in the middle east already fear u.s. imperialistic motives, hence the attacks on u.s. soil. big catch 22 if you ask me. but the current administration would rather press the 'fear' issue onto the american public, of which we eat with both hands. i have friends in the military that were happy to go to iraq (that's what they train for), but they have recently begun to question the alterior motives of their employers.
|
|
#15
07-31-2007, 05:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I think there are parallels between Bush and x-42. Both have done everything they could to insure that the minority party became the party with the majority. Regardless what you consider a liberal, Bush should never be considered a conservative.
|
|
#16
07-31-2007, 05:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
i heard a disturbing story this morning, and went to washington post dot com to listen for myself....
clyburn, dem from south carolina, # 3 in the house, stated that a favorable report from petraus in september would be a 'problem for democrats'. i wonder if that is his way of supporting the troops? soooo.....success in iraq is bad for dems. wonderful. wouldn't success be good for all americans? aren't dems americans? don't they want us to succeed? apparently not, as party is apparently above country, and an election win is more important than success in a war that was approved by our congress. not by the prez, altho dems in office at the time would like us to believe it was the case. i am disgusted by his comments.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#17
07-31-2007, 06:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Oh come on Dan...you should be disgusted with at least 90% of all of "public servents."
|
|
#18
07-31-2007, 06:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I'd certainly say that good progress in Iraq is a problem for Democrats, as far as the election is concerned. However, it doesn't mean I want it to go to hell in a handbasket [any further, that is]. Did he say that he hopes the report is bad, so that Dems benefit from it, or was it just a matter of fact statement of the absolute truth that progress in Iraq hurts the Dems electorally?
|
|
#19
07-31-2007, 06:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
i just think there should be a larger picture, rather than just the election. isn't the more important question whether success would be good for america? no doubt, good or bad, the dems will attempt (as will the republicans, and yes morty, most of them are not to my liking) to go with the wind--after all most of them voted to go to war, so they could always fall back on that!
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#20
07-31-2007, 06:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I forgot how much I turned you on with my mere type. Don't feel bad.
|
Hybrid Mode
