As we fnd out some things are not as wonderful as we were told. Hillary will get support from those that felt as many others did. As we find out everyday maybe some one may not have been as straight as first thought. Not sure if the General got his hand tied or he was ok with being told what to do. But just in last few days we find out about over 140000 private security soldiers. Many that protect our embassy people and government officials. Why. because no one can just walk or drive round Iraq unless they wish to die. And we don't have enough soldiers there to do job. We never heard a peep about any of this. And how if these private soldiers were not there we just might need to begin a draft. You think Bush or the General wanted that said. Yes by next election the 75 that voted as they did may wish they had not. As for add did it have to be so pointed. Don't know. But this half truth crap we get has to stop.
Senate votes to condem Moveon ad
- Thread starter DOGS THAT BARK
- Start date
Wayne, I just don't agree that this will be a big issue in the election. I think Hillary will be well-prepared to explain her position, which I'm guessing I would understand if it's anything like my own. I've asked a couple times what was incorrect in the ad, and noted that the ad did not say anything of the sort outright - just posed the question supported by facts.
Of course, I understand your desperation (and of course other conservatives/republicans) in trying to make it a huge campaign issue - I just think Hillary will be very adept at handling herself and her positions skillfully - unlike the current President. I don't think there's going to be many votes and positions that she won't be able to discuss and make sound acceptable to most democratic voters.
Of course she'll NEVER please YOU guys...
Of course, I understand your desperation (and of course other conservatives/republicans) in trying to make it a huge campaign issue - I just think Hillary will be very adept at handling herself and her positions skillfully - unlike the current President. I don't think there's going to be many votes and positions that she won't be able to discuss and make sound acceptable to most democratic voters.
Of course she'll NEVER please YOU guys...
In what REAL way did that vote show support for the military? It was about as useful as a bumper sticker ....just empty rhetoric.
As distasteful as I found the ad, I agree with your point completely. Reps are playing games which are played by both sides. Turning this meaningless vote into an issue of the support of our military personnel is a smart play, and roles reversed, you know the dems would play it the same way.
The thing that I do not like about Moveon.org, is that it appears they have a strangle-hold on the dem candidates. Listening to Hillary on Meet the Press, she would not directly criticize Moveon. Fear of backlash, I presume:shrug:
Last edited:
yep and amazing those that support candidate that can't even muster up the courage to to step on toes of liberal blog sites.
I'll give the left an idea of extent Moveon power is limited to only the left wing of the party--
They ran all out campaign against Liberman poured in mega financial aid for Lamonts campaign--work well inside the party as Lamont won dem primary only to be trounced by Joe in election running as independent. There power is limited to the far left and loathed by moderates.
I'll give the left an idea of extent Moveon power is limited to only the left wing of the party--
They ran all out campaign against Liberman poured in mega financial aid for Lamonts campaign--work well inside the party as Lamont won dem primary only to be trounced by Joe in election running as independent. There power is limited to the far left and loathed by moderates.
--another reason to merit a vote on issues--if you don't they can dance around every issue.
Especially the "artful dodger #2"
Appears even the liberal media has had their fill
Analysis: Dodges Undercut Clinton Image
Sep 27 06:47 PM US/Eastern
By BETH FOUHY
Associated Press Writer
HANOVER, N.H. (AP) - Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign slogan is "Ready for Change, Ready to Lead" yet she has adopted the time-honored, front-runner strategy of dodging tough questions, contradicting the image of a strong leader.
The former first lady and New York senator refused to take a position on a range of substantive issues during Wednesday night's debate, from Social Security reform to U.S. troop deployments in Iraq to whether Israel, if threatened, has the right to attack Iran.
She even ducked the question of which team she'd root for if her hometown Chicago Cubs met the New York Yankees in next month's World Series. "Well, I would probably have to alternate sides," she said.
Clinton's substantive knowledge of issues and strong debate performances throughout the primary campaign are among the reasons she's leading her rivals in national and most state polls. But last night's outing found her refusing to answer questions she deems "hypothetical," or saying she'll wait until she's president to outline specific policy proposals.
She also burst into laughter when pressed on certain points, such as when Mike Gravel said he was "ashamed" she had voted to in the Senate to boost pressure on a renegade group inside Iran.
Clinton's refusal to commit to some policy specifics is both tactical and principled, her advisers insist. They said that while she is reluctant to give Republicans ammunition to use in a general election, she also resists committing to specifics on many matters that could later impede her ability to do her job as president.
Analysts said that's a credible course of action for Clinton, but only to a point.
"It is a responsible position on some questions for a presidential candidate not to say precisely what he or she would do," Dartmouth political science professor Deborah Jordan Brooks said. "But others are things voters have a right to know. So over time, Clinton's evasions may wear thin, especially if she continues to play the experience card."
Examples of Clinton's evasiveness were manifest Wednesday night.
?She refused to say whether she would pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2013, the end of her first presidential term. "It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," she said.
?Clinton ducked the question of whether Israel had the right to bomb Iran if the country posed a nuclear threat. She called the question a "hypothetical," and said, "That's better not addressed at this time."
?She sidestepped a question about whether she would voluntarily disclose the names of contributors to Bill Clinton's presidential library. "You'll have to ask them," she said. "I don't talk about my private conversations with my husband."
The former president defended his wife's handling of that question at a news conference Thursday morning.
"She just thinks I'm entitled to speak for myself just like I think she is entitled to speak for herself," Bill Clinton said. "And she has got no business being asked to speak for me in a presidential debate just like I don't try to speak for her unless I know what her position is."
?She dodged when asked what she would "put on the table" to save Social Security, such as a proposal to raise Social Security taxes on incomes above $97,000. "I'm not putting anything on the proverbial table until we move toward fiscal responsibility," she said, adding, "I don't think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president.
Democratic strategist Donna Brazile said she considered Clinton's answer on Social Security to be "too clever by half," but said Clinton was holding her own in the debates even without committing to specific policy proposals.
Some people may have felt shortchanged by her answers, Brazile said, while adding that Clinton said enough to keep her current status as the front-runner.
"When you have such a substantial lead and so much credibility, you can afford to lay back."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--and which is it-Hilliary:shrug:
At one point in Wednesday night's Democratic debate, Senator Clinton was asked if she would authorize torture in questioning a top Al Qaeda official with knowledge of an imminent bomb attack on the U.S. Mrs. Clinton told moderator Tim Russert that torture "cannot be American policy, period."
Russert then revealed that the scenario he had cited came from none other than Bill Clinton, who had told Russert there should be authority for torture under such extreme circumstances.
And it turns out that Senator Clinton used to agree with that and said so more than once during the past year, at one point telling The New York Daily News there should be a, "very, very narrow exception within very limited circumstances."
Especially the "artful dodger #2"
Appears even the liberal media has had their fill
Analysis: Dodges Undercut Clinton Image
Sep 27 06:47 PM US/Eastern
By BETH FOUHY
Associated Press Writer
HANOVER, N.H. (AP) - Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign slogan is "Ready for Change, Ready to Lead" yet she has adopted the time-honored, front-runner strategy of dodging tough questions, contradicting the image of a strong leader.
The former first lady and New York senator refused to take a position on a range of substantive issues during Wednesday night's debate, from Social Security reform to U.S. troop deployments in Iraq to whether Israel, if threatened, has the right to attack Iran.
She even ducked the question of which team she'd root for if her hometown Chicago Cubs met the New York Yankees in next month's World Series. "Well, I would probably have to alternate sides," she said.
Clinton's substantive knowledge of issues and strong debate performances throughout the primary campaign are among the reasons she's leading her rivals in national and most state polls. But last night's outing found her refusing to answer questions she deems "hypothetical," or saying she'll wait until she's president to outline specific policy proposals.
She also burst into laughter when pressed on certain points, such as when Mike Gravel said he was "ashamed" she had voted to in the Senate to boost pressure on a renegade group inside Iran.
Clinton's refusal to commit to some policy specifics is both tactical and principled, her advisers insist. They said that while she is reluctant to give Republicans ammunition to use in a general election, she also resists committing to specifics on many matters that could later impede her ability to do her job as president.
Analysts said that's a credible course of action for Clinton, but only to a point.
"It is a responsible position on some questions for a presidential candidate not to say precisely what he or she would do," Dartmouth political science professor Deborah Jordan Brooks said. "But others are things voters have a right to know. So over time, Clinton's evasions may wear thin, especially if she continues to play the experience card."
Examples of Clinton's evasiveness were manifest Wednesday night.
?She refused to say whether she would pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2013, the end of her first presidential term. "It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," she said.
?Clinton ducked the question of whether Israel had the right to bomb Iran if the country posed a nuclear threat. She called the question a "hypothetical," and said, "That's better not addressed at this time."
?She sidestepped a question about whether she would voluntarily disclose the names of contributors to Bill Clinton's presidential library. "You'll have to ask them," she said. "I don't talk about my private conversations with my husband."
The former president defended his wife's handling of that question at a news conference Thursday morning.
"She just thinks I'm entitled to speak for myself just like I think she is entitled to speak for herself," Bill Clinton said. "And she has got no business being asked to speak for me in a presidential debate just like I don't try to speak for her unless I know what her position is."
?She dodged when asked what she would "put on the table" to save Social Security, such as a proposal to raise Social Security taxes on incomes above $97,000. "I'm not putting anything on the proverbial table until we move toward fiscal responsibility," she said, adding, "I don't think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president.
Democratic strategist Donna Brazile said she considered Clinton's answer on Social Security to be "too clever by half," but said Clinton was holding her own in the debates even without committing to specific policy proposals.
Some people may have felt shortchanged by her answers, Brazile said, while adding that Clinton said enough to keep her current status as the front-runner.
"When you have such a substantial lead and so much credibility, you can afford to lay back."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--and which is it-Hilliary:shrug:
At one point in Wednesday night's Democratic debate, Senator Clinton was asked if she would authorize torture in questioning a top Al Qaeda official with knowledge of an imminent bomb attack on the U.S. Mrs. Clinton told moderator Tim Russert that torture "cannot be American policy, period."
Russert then revealed that the scenario he had cited came from none other than Bill Clinton, who had told Russert there should be authority for torture under such extreme circumstances.
And it turns out that Senator Clinton used to agree with that and said so more than once during the past year, at one point telling The New York Daily News there should be a, "very, very narrow exception within very limited circumstances."
Last edited:
So who gives Rush the Lush for what he said about our brave soldiers serving in Iraq a pass. It to me is even worse. Gen's get paid to take chit. Our PFC"s and Sargent's don't.
It's pretty simple, DJV. In the "Fair and Balanced" world in which Rush lives in (when he's not flying around in space on painkillers, that is) unless you agree with his thinking, then you are neither a real American nor a real soldier. Phony, I believe, is what he called soldiers that don't support the indefinite occupation.
Can you begin to imagine the outcry if any liberal pundit would have attached the term phoney to any association with any of the troops? Can you imagine the voluminous links that Wayne would have posted?!?
I do think that most rational conservative thinkers know Rush much like rational liberal thinkers know Move-On. But the thing is, I wonder if the republican senators will spend time on crafting a condemnation of his comments?
Can you begin to imagine the outcry if any liberal pundit would have attached the term phoney to any association with any of the troops? Can you imagine the voluminous links that Wayne would have posted?!?
I do think that most rational conservative thinkers know Rush much like rational liberal thinkers know Move-On. But the thing is, I wonder if the republican senators will spend time on crafting a condemnation of his comments?
I would love to see Rush stand face-to-face with one of the All Americans who wrote the following article and call them phonies. I believe that these soldiers express a very enlightened point of view from a perspective that none of us can have.
The War as We Saw It
By: Buddhika Jayamaha, Wesley D. Smith, Jeremy Roebuck, Omar Mora, Edward Samdmeier, Yance T. Gray and Jeremy A. Murphy
OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS
New York Times: August 19, 2007
Baghdad, Iraq
Viewed from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)
The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the ?battle space? remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers? expense.
A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.
As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.
Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.
However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.
In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a ?time-sensitive target acquisition mission? on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse ? namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force.
Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.
Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.
The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment.
Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington?s insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made ? de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government ? places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.
Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict ? as we do now ? will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.
At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. ?Lucky? Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.
In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, ?We need security, not free food.?
In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are ? an army of occupation ? and force our withdrawal.
Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.
We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.
Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist. Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant. Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant. Omar Mora is a sergeant. Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant. Yance T. Gray is a staff sergeant. Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 ? ?Engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act,? the seven soldiers wrote of the war they had seen in Iraq. They were referring to the ordeals of Iraqi citizens, trying to go about their lives with death and suffering all around them. But sadly, although they did not know it at the time, they might almost have been referring to themselves.
Two of the soldiers who wrote of their pessimism about the war in an Op-Ed article that appeared in The New York Times on Aug. 19 were killed in Baghdad on Monday. They were not killed in combat, nor on a daring mission. They died when the five-ton cargo truck in which they were riding overturned.
The victims, Staff Sgt. Yance T. Gray, 26, and Sgt. Omar Mora, 28, were among the authors of ?The War as We Saw It,? in which they expressed doubts about reports of progress.
You Liberals....
You Liberals....
This is a very simple issue, so I fortunately for you low-life, non-English speaking liberals, I can use small words.
The Senates' job is to make America a better place.
By condemning Moveon.org, they are saying, and quite rightly, that their views are divisive and anti-American. So, in essence, we have the absolute majority of the US Senate saying that the democratic position on the issue in question is so off-base that it requires the most serious form of disaproval that our country can muster.
Let me ask you a question, you low-life Liberals- is it okay for someone to say something and then for moi,(which is French for "me", and I'm using that word here for dramatic effect, but that concept is probably lost on you guys, too) to come in and say it is repugnant, disgusting, and puerile? Or would that be violating your "Right to Free Speech"?
The logic you guys use to validate your hypocrisy amazing. If I write a book about you or your ideas it's "hate speech", but if you write one about me or my side of the story, which is always full of inflammatory rhetoric, al a Al Franken, it's journalism. Nauseating. But I'm too smart to ever think you low-lifes will stop.
Sigh.
You Liberals....
This is a very simple issue, so I fortunately for you low-life, non-English speaking liberals, I can use small words.
The Senates' job is to make America a better place.
By condemning Moveon.org, they are saying, and quite rightly, that their views are divisive and anti-American. So, in essence, we have the absolute majority of the US Senate saying that the democratic position on the issue in question is so off-base that it requires the most serious form of disaproval that our country can muster.
Let me ask you a question, you low-life Liberals- is it okay for someone to say something and then for moi,(which is French for "me", and I'm using that word here for dramatic effect, but that concept is probably lost on you guys, too) to come in and say it is repugnant, disgusting, and puerile? Or would that be violating your "Right to Free Speech"?
The logic you guys use to validate your hypocrisy amazing. If I write a book about you or your ideas it's "hate speech", but if you write one about me or my side of the story, which is always full of inflammatory rhetoric, al a Al Franken, it's journalism. Nauseating. But I'm too smart to ever think you low-lifes will stop.
Sigh.
Ah, at least we have some new "perspective" here. Thanks for joining the discussion. Ahem.
Thankfully, in the first part of your post, I realize you aren't typing to me, so that's a relief. I'm personally living a pretty high life, comparatively, and I speak English. Pretty well, in fact. So, I got that going for me...
To address your post, which Smurph had the sense not to, but I can't resist...
Do you think it is the best use of Senate time to judge ads in publications and take a stance (which really means nothing in reality and in practice) for some reason? If so, then I assume you would agree that ads for both sides that would be arguable in many respects would be opened up for debate and positions would then be taken? And if not, then why would that be?
To answer your question (I guess I can step up and be the "low-life liberal" for tonight)...it is perfectly fine for you or anyone else to "to come in and say [the ad] is repugnant, disgusting, and puerile." So, if you're looking to make a point, I guess from this liberal leaning perspective, I don't think you need to. I think that is essentially what most liberal leaners have been promoting with the current administration (and many before it) for years now.
I note that you consider yourself "too smart" in your initial self-aggrandizement here...cool. You got that going for you. Apparently we have a formidable foe here in the house again...again, cool.
One question, as you seem to be fired up about this. What do you make of Rush's comments about the phoney troops the other day? That was actually a personal assessment and label of many of our troops, unlike the ad in question, which only posed a question.
Welcome to the forum. Very glad to have you, methinks.
Last edited:
Rush is backtracking big time over his comments saying that it was taken out of context and claiming that he was talking about Jesse McBeth when he used the term "phony soldiers". Limbaugh has now reportedly submitted an editted tape of his conversation with a caller to MediaMatters. Click HERE and play the audio clip in the upper right corner of the page for the uneditted version of his despicable remarks about our soldiers that don't agree with his views.
LIMBAUGH: I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.
LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --
CALLER 2: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah.
LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.
LIMBAUGH: I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.
LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --
CALLER 2: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah.
LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.
wow
wow
WOW!!! I even spelled out that the ideas I was about to express were simple in nature, and you low-life liberals still weren't able to suss out what I wrote.
Um, I was talking to you. If the shoe fits...
I'm not sure what part of this is so un-simple that you were not able therefore to comprehend it. The Senate of the United States of America's purpose is to do those things that get us closer to being a more perfect nation. Simple. Easy. If that means coming right out and calling a spade, a spade, so be it. Sorry. Randomly making pointless assertions about what it is you "know" about me are off-base (this isn't an argument about/involving me, even tho I know the left, that is to say, persons such as Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, every dictator in Africa's history, etc, tend to do at each turn of a "debate" they have injected themselves into), and therefore I shall dismiss them, out of hand.
Huh? This is a forum for discussing whatever it is I feel is relevant. Why on god's green earth would I need your blessing to post? It's amazing, but not really shocking as you freedom-haters do it all the time, that you should find it necessary to spout off on what it is I should or should not be writing about. I'm sure you're a nice guy, Chadman, but please, for future reference, I'll be the one to judge (hi The Judge) what it is I should be writing about. Thanks, tho. Also, I'm sorta tired so I don't understand the last part of this paragraph, sorry.
If you'd like, and I see you do like, you can take me out of context, but it doesn't get us any closer to speaking about the core issue of the Senates' repudiation of these ridiculous comments by Moveon.org. Also I noted in the post you quote that you'd be puerile, and indeed you have been. Tenzing 1, Low-life, predictable Liberals - 0
Okay, well my answer is I cannot speak for anyone besides myself. I have no idea of the context of the snippet you posted. I'm not the biggest Rush fan, and don't tune in to his show. His brand of conservatism differs somewhat from mine. I'm very willing to accept that you know more about what he intended to say that I ever will. Oh, and I wasn't fired up atall. Moveon.org got a sweetheart deal, violating NYT's stated purpose to be a media outlet, reporting news, and not a panderer to any particular ideolgy. That's all I posted about. Moveon.org's ad was anti-American, and nowhere in it was the question posited, "Is Gen. Petreaus betraying us?" It was written up as fact. My assertion, and that of 89 percent of the American public who speak English, is that the Congress we have now is the most ineffectual, sleaze ball, ignorant, and downright un-American, EVER!
I've been here for years. First post was in 2002, I believe; thanks tho :spotting:
wow
WOW!!! I even spelled out that the ideas I was about to express were simple in nature, and you low-life liberals still weren't able to suss out what I wrote.
Um, I was talking to you. If the shoe fits...
I'm not sure what part of this is so un-simple that you were not able therefore to comprehend it. The Senate of the United States of America's purpose is to do those things that get us closer to being a more perfect nation. Simple. Easy. If that means coming right out and calling a spade, a spade, so be it. Sorry. Randomly making pointless assertions about what it is you "know" about me are off-base (this isn't an argument about/involving me, even tho I know the left, that is to say, persons such as Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, every dictator in Africa's history, etc, tend to do at each turn of a "debate" they have injected themselves into), and therefore I shall dismiss them, out of hand.
Huh? This is a forum for discussing whatever it is I feel is relevant. Why on god's green earth would I need your blessing to post? It's amazing, but not really shocking as you freedom-haters do it all the time, that you should find it necessary to spout off on what it is I should or should not be writing about. I'm sure you're a nice guy, Chadman, but please, for future reference, I'll be the one to judge (hi The Judge) what it is I should be writing about. Thanks, tho. Also, I'm sorta tired so I don't understand the last part of this paragraph, sorry.
If you'd like, and I see you do like, you can take me out of context, but it doesn't get us any closer to speaking about the core issue of the Senates' repudiation of these ridiculous comments by Moveon.org. Also I noted in the post you quote that you'd be puerile, and indeed you have been. Tenzing 1, Low-life, predictable Liberals - 0
Okay, well my answer is I cannot speak for anyone besides myself. I have no idea of the context of the snippet you posted. I'm not the biggest Rush fan, and don't tune in to his show. His brand of conservatism differs somewhat from mine. I'm very willing to accept that you know more about what he intended to say that I ever will. Oh, and I wasn't fired up atall. Moveon.org got a sweetheart deal, violating NYT's stated purpose to be a media outlet, reporting news, and not a panderer to any particular ideolgy. That's all I posted about. Moveon.org's ad was anti-American, and nowhere in it was the question posited, "Is Gen. Petreaus betraying us?" It was written up as fact. My assertion, and that of 89 percent of the American public who speak English, is that the Congress we have now is the most ineffectual, sleaze ball, ignorant, and downright un-American, EVER!
I've been here for years. First post was in 2002, I believe; thanks tho :spotting:
Last edited:
I am beginning to wonder if you have even seen the ad. Have you or are you just ranting?
As I have stated previously, I found the ad to be in bad taste and as an American was somewhat offended by it. However, the exact title of the ad was indeed a question (General Petraeus or General Betray Us?") and nowhere in the ad did it claim that the General was in "fact" betraying the country as you state but rather, it raised the question of whether he would or not during his upcoming testimony.
Click HERE for a link to the ad in question if you would like to read it for the first time.
Last edited:
"I would love to see Rush stand face-to-face with one of the All Americans who wrote the following article and call them phonies. I believe that these soldiers express a very enlightened point of view from a perspective that none of us can have."
++++++++++++++++++++++
--and I Greeg-would love to see the war protestors-Hilliary--senate members voting for attorneys for terrorist-moveon-Kos elements ect
--stand face to face with our troops--on the battlefield .
++++++++++++++++++++++
--and I Greeg-would love to see the war protestors-Hilliary--senate members voting for attorneys for terrorist-moveon-Kos elements ect
--stand face to face with our troops--on the battlefield .
Last edited:
Dear The Judge
Dear The Judge
No one on Earth is named General Betray Us, so it can hardly be thought of as a question to which Moveon.org was earnestly seeking an answer.
:mfpost
Dear The Judge
No one on Earth is named General Betray Us, so it can hardly be thought of as a question to which Moveon.org was earnestly seeking an answer.
:mfpost
Wayne, as a former soldier, I am curious as to what you think of Rush's remarks. I would also appreciate your comments on the perspective given by the men from the 82nd Airborne.
