DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Mucho on November 16, 2006, 01:58:03 PM
-
(http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tr/2006/tr061116.gif)
-
The 149 Dems today that snubbed Nancy Pelosi (by voting down Murtha) and provided her with her first stinging defeat, will be a pretty big base of Dems for Bush to work with.
-
The 149 Dems today that snubbed Nancy Pelosi (by voting down Murtha) and provided her with her first stinging defeat, will be a pretty big base of Dems for Bush to work with.
I am sooo glad you are willing to work with US Dems. Must make you puke after the unbridled fascism you had going before.
-
Not Dems like you, Knute.
The authorization for force against Iraq passed when the Dems controlled the senate in 2002.
11 Dems in the senate voted for Bush's tax cuts.
Many Dems voted for the Patriot Act and its reauthorization.
There are Dems out there for Bush to pick off, especially the 15 conservative ones in the House that were just elected.
-
Not Dems like you, Knute.
The authorization for force against Iraq passed when the Dems controlled the senate in 2002.
11 Dems in the senate voted for Bush's tax cuts.
Many Dems voted for the Patriot Act and its reauthorization.
There are Dems out there for Bush to pick off, especially the 15 conservative ones in the House that were just elected.
Bush couldn't even pick his nose successfully. You only prove that the Dems can be bi-partisan. Repubs rarely were when they held power .
-
Bush couldn't even pick his nose successfully. You only prove that the Dems can be bi-partisan. Repubs rarely were when they held power .
Are you insinuating that Republicans vote in lockstep? I thought using voting records for Dems and Repubs to show Terra was wrong would have gotten through your wall of stupidity as well.
Terra picked the year. Votes show that in 3 out of 4 votes, every Dem voted in lockstep, while Repubs were voting on both sides of the issue. Not once did I find a vote where every Repub voted the same way, but found plenty where every Dem voted the same way. Looks like only Repubs can be bi-partisan.
-
You only prove that the Dems can be bi-partisan. Repubs rarely were when they held power .
Are you insinuating that Republicans vote in lockstep? I thought using voting records for Dems and Repubs to show Terra was wrong would have gotten through your wall of stupidity as well. Terra picked the year. Votes show that in 3 out of 4 votes, every Dem voted in lockstep, while Repubs were voting on both sides of the issue. Not once did I find a vote where every Repub voted the same way, but found plenty where every Dem voted the same way. Looks like only Repubs can be bi-partisan.
D'OH....Ami with another stinging rignt cross, professionally landed square on target
-
You only prove that the Dems can be bi-partisan. Repubs rarely were when they held power .
Are you insinuating that Republicans vote in lockstep? I thought using voting records for Dems and Repubs to show Terra was wrong would have gotten through your wall of stupidity as well. Terra picked the year. Votes show that in 3 out of 4 votes, every Dem voted in lockstep, while Repubs were voting on both sides of the issue. Not once did I find a vote where every Repub voted the same way, but found plenty where every Dem voted the same way. Looks like only Repubs can be bi-partisan.
D'OH....Ami with another stinging rignt cross, professionally landed square on target
Boys- Boys. Please don't start kissing- Yucko!
-
Boys- Boys. Please don't start kissing- Yucko!
Nice rebuttal. Did it take you about 8 hours to research that one?
-
Boys- Boys. Please don't start kissing- Yucko!
Never pictured you for a homophob.
Learn something new every day.
:-*
-
Bush couldn't even pick his nose successfully.
He worked over Kerry pretty good.
You only prove that the Dems can be bi-partisan. Repubs rarely were when they held power .
There are some Dems that are willing to be bipartisan. I think you will see more of that with the Conservative Dems in the House that Rahm Emanual recruited which got the Dems their majority. But, unfortunately, many still march in lockstep to appease the wacky left wing base. Like when they were filibustering Bush's highly qualified judicial nominees.
-
Bush couldn't even pick his nose successfully.
He worked over Kerry pretty good.
You only prove that the Dems can be bi-partisan. Repubs rarely were when they held power .
There are some Dems that are willing to be bipartisan. I think you will see more of that with the Conservative Dems in the House that Rahm Emanual recruited which got the Dems their majority. But, unfortunately, many still march in lockstep to appease the wacky left wing base. Like when they were filibustering Bush's highly qualified judicial nominees.
I was wrong about Bush not being able to pick his nose. He actually does it quite well:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ifilm.com%2Ffilmdetail%3Fifilmid%3D960813 (http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ifilm.com%2Ffilmdetail%3Fifilmid%3D960813)
And YOU are, as usual, wrong are wrong about the Dems that were elected:
t’s Not the Democrats Who Are Divided
By FRANK RICH
Published: November 19, 2006
ELECTIONS may come and go, but Washington remains incorrigible. Not even voters delivering a clear message can topple the town’s conventional wisdom once it has been set in the stone of punditry.
Right now the capital is entranced by a fictional story line about the Democrats. As this narrative goes, the party’s sweep of Congress was more or less an accident. The victory had little to do with the Democrats’ actual beliefs and was instead solely the result of President Bush’s unpopularity and a cunning backroom stunt by the campaign Machiavellis, Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel, to enlist a smattering of “conservative†candidates to run in red states. In this retelling of the 2006 election, the signature race took place in Montana, where the victor was a gun-toting farmer with a flattop haircut: i.e., a Democrat in Republican drag. And now the party is deeply divided as its old liberals and new conservatives converge on Capitol Hill to slug it out.
The only problem with this version of events is that it’s not true. The overwhelming majority of the Democratic winners, including Jon Tester of Montana, are to the left of most Republicans, whether on economic policy or abortion. For all of the hyperventilation devoted to the Steny Hoyer-John Murtha bout for the House leadership, the final count was lopsided next to the one-vote margin in the G.O.P. Senate intramural that yielded that paragon of “unity,†Trent Lott. But the most telling barometer is the election’s defining issue: there is far more unanimity among Democrats about Iraq than there is among Republicans. Disengaging America from that war is what the country voted for overwhelmingly on Nov. 7, and that’s what the Democrats almost uniformly promised to speed up, whatever their vague, often inchoate notions about how to do it.
Even before they officially take over, the Democrats are trying to deliver on this pledge. Carl Levin and Joe Biden, among the party’s leaders in thinking through a new Iraq policy, are gravitating toward a long-gestating centrist exit strategy: a phased withdrawal starting in four to six months; a loosely federal Iraqi government that would ratify the de facto separation of the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds and fairly allocate the oil spoils; and diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy to engage Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran and Syria, in securing some kind of peace.
None of these ideas are radical, novel or much removed from what James Baker’s Iraq Study Group is expected to come up with. All are debatable and all could fail. At this late date, only triage is an option, not “victory.†There’s no panacea to end the civil war that four years of American bumbling have wrought. But the one truly serious story to come out of the election — far more significant than the Washington chatter about “divided Democrats†— is that the president has no intention of changing his policy on Iraq or anything else one iota.
Already we are seeing conclusive evidence that the White House’s post-thumpin’ blather about bipartisanship is worth as little as the “uniter, not a divider†bunk of the past. The tip-off came last week when Mr. Bush renominated a roster of choices for the federal appeals court that he knew faced certain rejection by Democrats. Why? To deliver a message to the entire Senate consonant with the unprintable greeting Dick Cheney once bestowed on Patrick Leahy, the senator from Vermont. That message was seconded by Tony Snow on Monday when David Gregory of NBC News asked him for a response to the Democrats’ Iraq proposals. The press secretary belittled them as “nonspecific†and then tried to deflect the matter entirely by snickering at Mr. Gregory’s follow-up questions.
Don Imus has been rerunning the video ever since, and with good reason. The laughing-while-Baghdad-burns intransigence of the White House makes your blood run cold. The day after Mr. Snow ridiculed alternative policies for Iraq, six American soldiers were killed. It was on that day as well that militia assailants stormed the education ministry in Baghdad in broad daylight, effortlessly carrying out a mass abduction of as many as 150 government officials in some 15 minutes. Given that those kidnappers were probably in cahoots with a faction of the very government they were terrorizing, it would be hard to come up with a more alarming snapshot of those “conditions on the ground†the president keeps talking about: utter chaos, with American troops in the middle, risking their lives to defend which faction, exactly?
All I can say Bush is gonna fight. He's picking people the Dems have to oppose. Bush is not a good loser, not even a bad loser. He's gonna act like the GOP still controls both houses.
And he's gonna have to lose those fights to understand.
As far as dividing Iraq goes, well Maliki keeps calling for "unleashing" the Iraqi Army (read anti-Sunni pogrom). So if that's the thinking, nothing is getting split.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/washington/19rove.html?ei=5090&en=e1365e25d9923685&ex=1321592400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/washington/19rove.html?ei=5090&en=e1365e25d9923685&ex=1321592400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print)
You make me sooo happy to anticipate beating up Repub whack jobs that the Bushidiot will try to stack the judiciary with.
-
I was wrong about Bush not being able to pick his nose. He actually does it quite well
He is going to pick off conservative Dems just as well.
It’s Not the Democrats Who Are Divided
Pelosi can't keep her troops in line to elect Jack Murtha (how is she going to get legislation passed?), the DLC wants to fire Howard Dean for missing an opportunity, and the liberal media can't believe the bone headed mistakes Pelosi is making. That seems pretty divided to me. The finger pointing, the score settling, the back stabbing. You guys are acting like you lost or something.
a cunning backroom stunt by the campaign Machiavellis, Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel, to enlist a smattering of “conservative†candidates to run in red states.
This statement happens to be true. The House Democrats who won in Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire are all conservative Democrats. The Dem who won in North Carolina, Heath Shuler, is more conseravtive than I am. You guys wouldn't have the House majority if it weren't for these 15 conservative Democrats.
You make me sooo happy to anticipate beating up Repub whack jobs that the Bushidiot will try to stack the judiciary with.
How "bipartisan" of you. Remember what happened to Daschle.
-
You only prove that the Dems can be bi-partisan. Repubs rarely were when they held power .
I was wrong about Bush not being able to pick his nose. He actually does it quite well. And YOU are, as usual, wrong are wrong about the Dems that were elected: It’s Not the Democrats Who Are Divided
By FRANK RICH
Published: November 19, 2006....
rant...blather...yada...rant
You make me sooo happy to anticipate beating up Repub whack jobs that the Bushidiot will try to stack the judiciary with.
[/quote]
And quite entertainingly, thru-out all that salivating rant, nothing remotely being able to refute how the Dems are so much more partisan than the GOP, when it comes to policy. In fact, your last statement helps rebutt your own claim. Much appreciated
-
You only prove that the Dems can be bi-partisan. Repubs rarely were when they held power .
I was wrong about Bush not being able to pick his nose. He actually does it quite well. And YOU are, as usual, wrong are wrong about the Dems that were elected: It’s Not the Democrats Who Are Divided
By FRANK RICH
Published: November 19, 2006....
rant...blather...yada...rant
You make me sooo happy to anticipate beating up Repub whack jobs that the Bushidiot will try to stack the judiciary with.
And quite entertainingly, thru-out all that salivating rant, nothing remotely being able to refute how the Dems are so much more partisan than the GOP, when it comes to policy. In fact, your last statement helps rebutt your own claim. Much appreciated
[/quote]
Just like imagining WMD's and Al Queda in Iraq prior to Bushidiot, you imagine Dems more partisan than you and my rebutting myself , Dream on, dreamer.
-
Just like imagining WMD's and Al Queda in Iraq prior to Bushidiot, you imagine Dems more partisan than you and my rebutting myself , Dream on, dreamer.
So messers Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Dean, Kennedy, etc., etc., etc., are all delusional?, all of them simply imagining that Saddam had WMD? Wow, quite a brush you weild there, knute. And, oh, BTW, the "imagination" are the FACTs that were presented by Ami, you you have yet to rebutt. Not that everyone else doesn't already see that, however
-
Just like imagining WMD's and Al Queda in Iraq prior to Bushidiot
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members. -Hillary Clinton (Democrat frontrunner for president)
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
-
Just like imagining WMD's and Al Queda in Iraq prior to Bushidiot, you imagine Dems more partisan than you and my rebutting myself , Dream on, dreamer.
So messers Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Dean, Kennedy, etc., etc., etc., are all delusional?, all of them simply imagining that Saddam had WMD? Wow, quite a brush you weild there, knute. And, oh, BTW, the "imagination" are the FACTs that were presented by Ami, you you have yet to rebutt. Not that everyone else doesn't already see that, however
I dont respond to Ami anymore. He is far too shallow , empty headed and off topic to even consider. BTW- none of those guys believe it anymore, but you do , dont you?
-
I dont respond to Ami anymore.
No, it's more like I challenged you to prove that I lied (your claim), and your only response at that point was to claim that you don't respond to me anymore.
Even though you have responded to me a few times since making your proclamation.
But that's ok, we all understand that you can't rebut my arguments, so you choose to ignore them instead. It's understandable.
Still haven't been able to show where I've lied, yet, either.
-
I dont respond to Ami anymore. He is far too shallow , empty headed and off topic to even consider. BTW- none of those guys believe it anymore, but you do , dont you?
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Why not ?
We can be quite certain that Saddam was eagerly building WMD and novel wepons throuout the eightys , he had plenty of poisonous gasses when he was killling Kurds .
How exactly did he get rid of all this stuff without leaveing a trace?
-
I dont respond to Ami anymore.
Smart move. It minimizes showcasing how completely ignorant you are of the facts, of any particular issue. In this instance the notion that the Dems are this massively more bi-partisan group than the GOP, when the facts prove nearly the polar opposite
BTW- none of those guys believe it anymore, but you do , dont you?
That he had them, or that since our taking him out, we've discovered that he no longer has them? Not sure what your question is. Then again, I have to consider the source. The former everyone nearly believes, the latter, is an updated status on the former.
-
I dont respond to Ami anymore. He is far too shallow , empty headed and off topic to even consider. BTW- none of those guys believe it anymore, but you do , dont you?
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Why not ?
We can be quite certain that Saddam was eagerly building WMD and novel wepons throuout the eightys , he had plenty of poisonous gasses when he was killling Kurds .
How exactly did he get rid of all this stuff without leaveing a trace?
I hate to say I told you so , BUT .....
We know he had weapons in the ancient past, because the US still has the receipts . It is evident that he got rid of them sortly after Bush War #1. One proof of this is that there is not a trace to be found now, silly.
-
That there is no disposal site , no trace of them at all , no incenerator with traces all over it , is more of a problem than finding the stuff would be.
We know he was capable of makeing thousands of rounds of poision shells , where went the empys?
The easyest way to have no trace is to have carryed them to a hide we haven't found yet .
-
That there is no disposal site , no trace of them at all , no incenerator with traces all over it , is more of a problem than finding the stuff would be.
We know he was capable of makeing thousands of rounds of poision shells , where went the empys?
The easyest way to have no trace is to have carryed them to a hide we haven't found yet .
If they were to be found, we woulda foundem by now. We found Saddam and he is a lot smaller than WMD's dontcha know. Well, at least you understand a simple question.
-
If they were to be found, we woulda foundem by now.
Unless of course they've been moved into Syria, or at least a vast majority of them that he still had. that is a highly plausible scenario, corroborated by the Iraqi General who was in charge of Saddam's air wing, prior to our taking him out.
-
If they were to be found, we woulda foundem by now.
Unless of course they've been moved into Syria, or at least a vast majority of them that he still had. that is a highly plausible scenario, corroborated by the Iraqi General who was in charge of Saddam's air wing, prior to our taking him out.
Only the RW frootloop press that you read claim such silly shit. This fantasy was disproven long ago:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501554_pf.html
-
Only the most remarkable twisted RW minds could assert that the fact that nothing can be found must prove that something was there. LMFAO!
-
Only the most remarkable twisted RW minds could assert that the fact that nothing can be found must prove that something was there.
Which still has yet to refute that Dems acruss the spectrum believed Saddam had WMD, nor that Dems are far less bi-partisan than the GOP. Care to demonstrate where anyone still believes they are there?? Perhaps you want to reconsider that laugh, as it would be everyone else aiming that laughter at yourself
-
Only the most remarkable twisted RW minds could assert that the fact that nothing can be found must prove that something was there.
Which still has yet to refute that Dems acruss the spectrum believed Saddam had WMD, nor that Dems are far less bi-partisan than the GOP. Care to demonstrate where anyone still believes they are there?? Perhaps you want to reconsider that laugh, as it would be everyone else aiming that laughter at yourself
You will never get it . I suppose it must be tough to be so wrong and responsible for nearly 3000 US and hundreds of thousand of Iraqis like you & your ilk are. Some Dems may have believed that WMD bullshit, but none do now. You still do and are still living in fantasyland.
-
Only the most remarkable twisted RW minds could assert that the fact that nothing can be found must prove that something was there.
... Care to demonstrate where anyone still believes they are there?? ...
You will never get it . I suppose it must be tough to be so wrong and responsible for nearly 3000 US and hundreds of thousand of Iraqis like you & your ilk are. Some Dems may have believed that WMD bullshit, but none do now. You still do and are still living in fantasyland.
So, none to be found. Your immature efforts at insulting vs your substantive contributions to debate are to be noted. "Some Dems" would be accurately translated into MOST Dems, including the already mentioned messers Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Dean, Reid, etc., etc., etc. Now, care to demonstrate where I've said that they're currently all over the place, and we just haven't found them yet?? Hardly ANYONE does now, including Bush
-
Saddam bought Clorine in quantity suffecient to purify the whole water table of Iraq.
Clorine is an element , where are the traces?
-
Saddam bought Clorine in quantity suffecient to purify the whole water table of Iraq.
Clorine is an element , where are the traces?
It is elemental my dear , Watson.It is everywhere.
-
Saddam bought Clorine in quantity suffecient to purify the whole water table of Iraq.
Clorine is an element , where are the traces?
It is elemental my dear , Watson.It is everywhere.
With the amount Saddam purchased some little trace should be found somewhere.
-
Some Dems may have believed that WMD bullshit, but none do now. You still do and are still living in fantasyland.
So, none to be found. Your immature efforts at insulting vs your substantive contributions to debate are to be noted. "Some Dems" would be accurately translated into MOST Dems, including the already mentioned messers Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Dean, Reid, etc., etc., etc. Now, care to demonstrate where I've said (or even implied) that they're currently all over the place, and we just haven't found them yet?? [/quote]
Didn't think so
-
Some Dems may have believed that WMD bullshit, but none do now. You still do and are still living in fantasyland.
So, none to be found. Your immature efforts at insulting vs your substantive contributions to debate are to be noted. "Some Dems" would be accurately translated into MOST Dems, including the already mentioned messers Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Dean, Reid, etc., etc., etc. Now, care to demonstrate where I've said (or even implied) that they're currently all over the place, and we just haven't found them yet??
Didn't think so
[/quote]
Saddam bought Clorine in quantity suffecient to purify the whole water table of Iraq.
Clorine is an element , where are the traces?
Most/ some , so what . None of them believe that Bullshit now, but you still do. And dont say Leiberman does. He isnt really a Dem, but he wants to be.
It is elemental, my dear Watson.It is everywhere. ( You buyem books & sendem to school & they still cant think-JEEZ!)
With the amount Saddam purchased some little trace should be found somewhere.
It is the ELEMENT that is everwhere , Dumbo.