Do You Agree with Your Enemy Party on Any Issue?

The dems have asked that troops come home. Bush has made plans for that. How do you get any closer to what Dems have been asking for than that?




QUOTE] well maybe if he was going to bring 80% of them home by April, instead of just the ones he added and should never have been sent..
 
The dems have asked that troops come home. Bush has made plans for that. How do you get any closer to what Dems have been asking for than that?




QUOTE] well maybe if he was going to bring 80% of them home by April, instead of just the ones he added and should never have been sent..
What are you saying? It's not clear in this post.
 
The dems have asked that troops come home. Bush has made plans for that. How do you get any closer to what Dems have been asking for than that?

Bush has NOT made plans for all the troops to come home...just a small number of them.

Yes it was the action of Bush, but that wasn't who your post referred to. You don't get to keep changeing your story. Your response asked for an explanation of why the dems were praising Mukasey. Nothing more. There was no mention of an action by Bush then.

Lmfao...I would think that, considering you post here, you would keep abreast of current events and it would be obvious what I was talking about.

I claimed you don't see dems openly support the actions of members of the opposite party. Again Mukasey is supported by Dems because of his strict adherence to the law as a judge. Makeing whether he is Republican or Democrat irrelevant.

Lmfao...and no doubt numerous other reasons for each party to support members of the opposite party would also "make their party irrelevant". Nice catch-all you've built in to remove any alternative evidence.

As I said to Jillian we are seeing plenty of praise by the dems for Mukasey (your original claim). We are not seeing vocal support for Bush's action of the nomination (the claim your trying pretend you made the first time).

Sure we are. Here you go...specifically compliments Bush.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, one of Gonzales' sharpest critics, said the nomination "certainly shows a new attitude in the White House."

"Instead of simply throwing down the gauntlet, they're trying to meet us part of the way in choosing someone who by reputation and in his career has shown fidelity to rule of law above conservative politics," Schumer said.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/18/mukasey/

Be man enough to admit when you are wrong Bern. Mukasey is a blow to your little theory.
 
Bush has NOT made plans for all the troops to come home...just a small number of them.

So by implication do mean the majority of dems want all troops home now?



Lmfao...I would think that, considering you post here, you would keep abreast of current events and it would be obvious what I was talking about.

Oh quit trying to cover your ass. You never mentioned Bush once or even alluded to him in that post yet not only are you trying to convince me that you did mean for Bush to be part of it, but that I'm basically some kind of dim wit for not clairvoiently understanding that? Time for you to admit when you made a mistake.



Lmfao...and no doubt numerous other reasons for each party to support members of the opposite party would also "make their party irrelevant". Nice catch-all you've built in to remove any alternative evidence.

It isn't meant to be a catch all or a generalization. Being a judge a job where your personl politics aren't suppossed to come into play at all is far different from being a legislator where your politcs are very much a part of your job.




Be man enough to admit when you are wrong Bern. Mukasey is a blow to your little theory.

Sure I'm man enough. I stand corrected. Too bad the same can't be said for you.

As to my theory, no your link is not a blow to it. Mainly because you don't know what my theory is in the first place. My theory as indicated by my opriginal post here was that the state of our politcal parties doesn't lend itself well to agreement, compromise and an effort to find common ground for the betterment of he country. That it is difficult to acheive the later certainly doesn't mean that I think it's impossible. I just think party politics are distraction to it. That you found an instance where the parties agree isn't really a blow to that theory as it is the exception rather than the rule
 
As I said to Jillian we are seeing plenty of praise by the dems for Mukasey (your original claim). We are not seeing vocal support for Bush's action of the nomination (the claim your trying pretend you made the first time).

From Larkinn's link: Sen. Schumer's comments,

"Instead of simply throwing down the gauntlet, [white house is] trying to meet us part of the way in choosing someone who by reputation and in his career has shown fidelity to rule of law above conservative politics," Schumer said.

I'd say he credited Bush. I'm not sure what more you want.
 
I'm sorry, I'm clueless on how to correct the presentations given my choices. I'm sure there's a way, just can't find it with editing.
 
So by implication do mean the majority of dems want all troops home now?

Dems are split on the issue. But I can tell you that Dems who want withdrawal are NOT impressed by putting in a bunch of troops and then taking that same number out.

Oh quit trying to cover your ass. You never mentioned Bush once or even alluded to him in that post yet not only are you trying to convince me that you did mean for Bush to be part of it, but that I'm basically some kind of dim wit for not clairvoiently understanding that? Time for you to admit when you made a mistake.

Umm, are you serious? Why else would I be referring to Mukasey? It doesn't exactly take clairvoyance to make the connection between me claiming that sometimes partisan politicians support the points of the other side, and me pointing to Mukasey who, coincidentally enough, just got support from people on the other side of the aisle when he was nominated. Clairvoyance?...are you fucking joking me? Sure I'll admit I made a mistake. I apologize for expecting you to make the simplest of connections. In the future I will attempt to spell everything out for you at length so you don't have to do any thinking for yourself.

It isn't meant to be a catch all or a generalization. Being a judge a job where your personl politics aren't suppossed to come into play at all is far different from being a legislator where your politcs are very much a part of your job.

Judges politics come into play all the time. That and he wasn't nominated to be a judge, he was nominated to be the AG...two very different things.

Sure I'm man enough. I stand corrected. Too bad the same can't be said for you.

So after you argued that you were right, now you are admitting you were wrong...alright then.

As to my theory, no your link is not a blow to it. Mainly because you don't know what my theory is in the first place. My theory as indicated by my opriginal post here was that the state of our politcal parties doesn't lend itself well to agreement, compromise and an effort to find common ground for the betterment of he country. That it is difficult to acheive the later certainly doesn't mean that I think it's impossible. I just think party politics are distraction to it. That you found an instance where the parties agree isn't really a blow to that theory as it is the exception rather than the rule

You said "The politcal fall out for Pelosi or any dem to support any action or policy the the President or any Republican (and vic versa probably) came up with would be disastrous for them"

Which seems quite inconsistent with your previous quote. If you want to argue that they don't lend themselves well to agreement, well then I agree with you. But if the argument is that its politically impossible and they have to disagree or else risk political ruin, well I think that is bullshit.
 
Dems are split on the issue. But I can tell you that Dems who want withdrawal are NOT impressed by putting in a bunch of troops and then taking that same number out.

Why? The surge happened. At that point what did you want to have happen next?

Umm, are you serious? Why else would I be referring to Mukasey? It doesn't exactly take clairvoyance to make the connection between me claiming that sometimes partisan politicians support the points of the other side, and me pointing to Mukasey who, coincidentally enough, just got support from people on the other side of the aisle when he was nominated. Clairvoyance?...are you fucking joking me? Sure I'll admit I made a mistake. I apologize for expecting you to make the simplest of connections. In the future I will attempt to spell everything out for you at length so you don't have to do any thinking for yourself.

The famous non-apology, apology. I love those. I seem to be damned if I do and damned if I don't when it comes to assuming anything with you so for the sake of carrying on a conversation I think it is safest if I don't assume anything. One thing I have learned is that there is really no valid reason to believe that because something is obvious to you, that it will be obvious to someone else. It doesn't make them any less perceptive then you, that they don't either. It means I can't see the chain of thought in your head anymore than you can see mine. In short, in hopes of not wasteing more space on crap like this I'd appreciate if you would drop the arrogance and condescension and just make your point as clearly as humanly possible.


You said "The politcal fall out for Pelosi or any dem to support any action or policy the the President or any Republican (and vic versa probably) came up with would be disastrous for them"

Which seems quite inconsistent with your previous quote. If you want to argue that they don't lend themselves well to agreement, well then I agree with you. But if the argument is that its politically impossible and they have to disagree or else risk political ruin, well I think that is bullshit.

'Any' is a little strong I suppose. From a political carreer perspective it depends on a few things as to whether a legislator can afford to agree vocally with policies adopted by the other side. It depends on their constiuency and the specifics of said policy for example. It also depends on the political climate of the time. I believe, and it's just my opinion, that the first quote is true. No democrat can afford to openly agree with any action the president takes with regards to the war. They have invested too much time in a campaign saying how ill conceived the invasion was, what a waste the surge is, and advocating that the troops come home very soon.
 
Why? The surge happened. At that point what did you want to have happen next?

Yes they are glad that there is a draw-down...but asking them to be thankful to Bush for putting in more troops and then drawing them down is like asking someone to be thankful to someone who broke your window on purpose, who fixes your window. I mean are you really supposed to respect someone more because they do the opposite of what you want, and then change it?

The famous non-apology, apology. I love those. I seem to be damned if I do and damned if I don't when it comes to assuming anything with you so for the sake of carrying on a conversation I think it is safest if I don't assume anything. One thing I have learned is that there is really no valid reason to believe that because something is obvious to you, that it will be obvious to someone else. It doesn't make them any less perceptive then you, that they don't either. It means I can't see the chain of thought in your head anymore than you can see mine. In short, in hopes of not wasteing more space on crap like this I'd appreciate if you would drop the arrogance and condescension and just make your point as clearly as humanly possible.

Then when I correct myself or make myself more clear, don't be a dick and say shit like "you don't get to keep changing your story".

'Any' is a little strong I suppose. From a political carreer perspective it depends on a few things as to whether a legislator can afford to agree vocally with policies adopted by the other side. It depends on their constiuency and the specifics of said policy for example. It also depends on the political climate of the time. I believe, and it's just my opinion, that the first quote is true. No democrat can afford to openly agree with any action the president takes with regards to the war. They have invested too much time in a campaign saying how ill conceived the invasion was, what a waste the surge is, and advocating that the troops come home very soon.

If Bush recalled a substantial number of troops, Dems would approve.
 
Yes they are glad that there is a draw-down...but asking them to be thankful to Bush for putting in more troops and then drawing them down is like asking someone to be thankful to someone who broke your window on purpose, who fixes your window. I mean are you really supposed to respect someone more because they do the opposite of what you want, and then change it?



Then when I correct myself or make myself more clear, don't be a dick and say shit like "you don't get to keep changing your story".



If Bush recalled a substantial number of troops, Dems would approve.

If George Bush ordered all but 30 k troops out of Iraq tomorrow ( a plan dems have called for) we would then be hearing how bad ab idea that was, they would be going on about danger to troops leaving, our commitments to Iraq, etc etc....
 
If George Bush ordered all but 30 k troops out of Iraq tomorrow ( a plan dems have called for) we would then be hearing how bad ab idea that was, they would be going on about danger to troops leaving, our commitments to Iraq, etc etc....

Bullshit. That you believe this is a mark of how pathetically partisan you are.
 
Oh my you have disagreed in a small way against someone that won't vote for your party anyway, I see, that makes it all better. Remind me how you disagree with her rants about mass murdering, Nazi American troops.


You are a riot! First you ask him to show you a liberal he has ever disagreed with publically.....he named me. I am definitely a liberal, he has disagreed with me.

Then when you are proven wrong, instead of being a couragous grown up and admitting that you were wrong and he has indeed disagreed with a liberal publically YOU CHANGE the criteria to be that he must publically disagree with me on your incorrect characterizations of my views, not my REAL views, but YOUR incorrect characterizations.

It just flips you out that anyone dare go beyond the corp media propagandized perimeters for "accepted" ways to discuss things. Sadly I doubt you even get what that statement means or entails.
 
If George Bush ordered all but 30 k troops out of Iraq tomorrow ( a plan dems have called for) we would then be hearing how bad ab idea that was, they would be going on about danger to troops leaving, our commitments to Iraq, etc etc....


Our committment to Iraq is to rape and pillage, I gladly and happily support abandoning that committment.

We have a debt to Iraq, no doubt about that. We may even have a moral responsiblity to clean up the mess we made in their nation BUT the facts are that we CANT clean it up because it crosses the line into violating their rights to self-determine and they arent rights they seem to be ready to forego either.

Our debt should be paid in restitution payments for many years to come. First steps should be to withdraw all requirments and benchmarks that include them changing laws regarding their resources and any requirments or benchmarks that include imposing economic rules or regulations upon them. We should not protect the Iraqi puppet govt at all, they must survive or die according to the Iraqi peoples will and not by a foreign powers military might.
 
You are a riot! First you ask him to show you a liberal he has ever disagreed with publically.....he named me. I am definitely a liberal, he has disagreed with me.

Then when you are proven wrong, instead of being a couragous grown up and admitting that you were wrong and he has indeed disagreed with a liberal publically YOU CHANGE the criteria to be that he must publically disagree with me on your incorrect characterizations of my views, not my REAL views, but YOUR incorrect characterizations.

It just flips you out that anyone dare go beyond the corp media propagandized perimeters for "accepted" ways to discuss things. Sadly I doubt you even get what that statement means or entails.

For someone who abandoned their country in the face of your perceived adversity, you sure talk a lot about courage!

Oh yeah, I forgot, hypocricy is acceptable as long as you and your kind are the ones practicing it.
 
For someone who abandoned their country in the face of your perceived adversity, you sure talk a lot about courage!

Oh yeah, I forgot, hypocricy is acceptable as long as you and your kind are the ones practicing it.

ABANDONED their country?

thats a little mellowdramatic, don't you think? She has an opinion as do you. That's about as American as it gets. If she didn't care about her nation then why would she argue with the lies of you about current policies? Good greif.
 
For someone who abandoned their country in the face of your perceived adversity, you sure talk a lot about courage!

Oh yeah, I forgot, hypocricy is acceptable as long as you and your kind are the ones practicing it.


I think shogun used the right word "mellodramatic".

Abandoned LOL, its not my kid or my husband! I am a free person and its a big world and plenty to see in it.

But as I mentioned previously, I stay active as I always have and continue to donate time and money to the causes and candidates I support. I also have to file my taxes and I do every year. I also retain the right to vote, which I also do.

I have never heard moving to another nation as "hypocrisy" LOL...thats a stretch even for YOU!
 
I think shogun used the right word "mellodramatic".

Abandoned LOL, its not my kid or my husband! I am a free person and its a big world and plenty to see in it.

But as I mentioned previously, I stay active as I always have and continue to donate time and money to the causes and candidates I support. I also have to file my taxes and I do every year. I also retain the right to vote, which I also do.

I have never heard moving to another nation as "hypocrisy" LOL...thats a stretch even for YOU!

I don't read Shogun's posts...put him on ignore long ago. It's not your moving to another country that prompts my use of the term "abandoned"; it's your public proclamation that the US is a terrorist state and is responsible for the ills of the world (among some of your other claims) that convinces me you have indeed abandoned your country.
 
If George Bush ordered all but 30 k troops out of Iraq tomorrow ( a plan dems have called for) we would then be hearing how bad ab idea that was, they would be going on about danger to troops leaving, our commitments to Iraq, etc etc....
Who called for THAT plan. someone in your imagination??. Even I wouldn't be anxi enough to ask for that. although I would also question the reasonability of such an action.
 
Our committment to Iraq is to rape and pillage, I gladly and happily support abandoning that committment.

We have a debt to Iraq, no doubt about that. We may even have a moral responsiblity to clean up the mess we made in their nation BUT the facts are that we CANT clean it up because it crosses the line into violating their rights to self-determine and they arent rights they seem to be ready to forego either.

Our debt should be paid in restitution payments for many years to come. First steps should be to withdraw all requirments and benchmarks that include them changing laws regarding their resources and any requirments or benchmarks that include imposing economic rules or regulations upon them. We should not protect the Iraqi puppet govt at all, they must survive or die according to the Iraqi peoples will and not by a foreign powers military might.
That makes a lot better sense.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top