Hr 3962 passes!

Democrats sided with Bush on the wars ... and all his policies. :eusa_whistle:

Another enduring rightwing myth. Most Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war resolution.

Another myth is that the resolution was to go to war with Iraq at all - it wasn't. Congress passed (with almost unanimous Republican support, with the majority of Democrats opposed) a resolution granting President Bush to use any and all means necessary to disarm Iraq, if Iraq failed to comply with UN inspections regimes.

Not 30 days before Bush ordered the invasion, the head of the UN inspection team reported that Iraq was in material compliance with the inspections, and UN forces were already overseeing the destruction of a bunch of medium-range missiles that were banned by a previous UN resolution.

But at this point, it hardly matters, since Bush is out of office and the war is fait accompli.

The more interesting tactic to me, is that so many right-wingers on here keep decrying any reference to Bush - who just left office this fracking year as if it's somehow no longer relevant.

Yah... just like we never heard anything blamed on Clinton once Bush took office.... :cuckoo:

Note.. you should actually try and understand terms of cease fire... does not do much good if the opposition violates and all is wiped out if they say "we agree to the next inspection" as you are about to make them pay... then they violate again... and right before action all is wiped out because they say they will cooperate again

We were fucking justified to take them out the very minute the first violation of the cease-fire agreement happened...

More newbie fucking morons.... jeez...
 
Considering the district Cao represents... you're right with the conclusion, but not the reasoning.

Has Rush demanded Cao's ouster yet? He may want to check with Boehner first on this one...


Here's your answer--- In fact, it's no wonder that this congress has an approval rating of 14%. Here's what is coming---:lol::lol::lol:

View attachment 8635


This is what happens when you don't listen to the people you were elected to represent--LOL

This too! Voice of a reason.

jumpo.png
 
Some of us were sick of the former administrations' running roughshod over the country, and the constitution ;-)

Remember when Bush declared that he had the power to simply pick any American citizen up, on U.S. soil, declare that person an "enemy combatant", and throw them in a military prison with no due process, no access to a lawyer, and without charging the person with a crime?

I do. I also remember the day the Supreme Court struck that down as unconstitutional.

I believe that former President Bush's authorization for the NSA to wiretap the phones of U.S. citizens making calls overseas, without a warrant from the FISA court (which allows you to get the warrant after you've done the wiretap, even), was also unconstitutional, and there are currently several cases making their way to the Supreme Court that will ultimately determine whether it was, or wasn't, unconstitutional.

So far, the Democrats haven't managed to do anything I'd consider "unconstitutional" (hell, they haven't managed to pass much in the way of legislation at all, which is generally the way I like it). If the health-care reform ends up being struck down by SCOTUS, then so be it - their decision is the final one.

If it's not struck down, then I hope you also acknowledge that the reform turned out not to be unconstitutional.


Ah, the old standard "but, but, but, BOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSHHHH!".... the last resort of a dead argument.

Both fucking parties constantly do things that actually ARE unconstitutional - whether you consider them to be or not. For decades, they have ignored the constitution - all of them - right and left. It's not an opinion, it's facts. And as for our so called 'SCOTUS' - well, that's laughable.

Stop whining.

Sounds like you're the one whining here :cuckoo:
Note that I'm in FAVOR of the bill that just passed, not whining about how it's gonna undermine my liberty, blah blah.

Interesting that defending the Constitution is whining to you, but harping back to the previous administration is not.

Idiot.
 
Another enduring rightwing myth. Most Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war resolution.

Another myth is that the resolution was to go to war with Iraq at all - it wasn't. Congress passed (with almost unanimous Republican support, with the majority of Democrats opposed) a resolution granting President Bush to use any and all means necessary to disarm Iraq, if Iraq failed to comply with UN inspections regimes.

Not 30 days before Bush ordered the invasion, the head of the UN inspection team reported that Iraq was in material compliance with the inspections, and UN forces were already overseeing the destruction of a bunch of medium-range missiles that were banned by a previous UN resolution.

But at this point, it hardly matters, since Bush is out of office and the war is fait accompli.

The more interesting tactic to me, is that so many right-wingers on here keep decrying any reference to Bush - who just left office this fracking year as if it's somehow no longer relevant.

Yah... just like we never heard anything blamed on Clinton once Bush took office.... :cuckoo:

Note.. you should actually try and understand terms of cease fire... does not do much good if the opposition violates and all is wiped out if they say "we agree to the next inspection" as you are about to make them pay... then they violate again... and right before action all is wiped out because they say they will cooperate again

We were fucking justified to take them out the very minute the first violation of the cease-fire agreement happened...

More newbie fucking morons.... jeez...

More pointless ad hominen arguments, which hold no water.

If you think spending a trillion dollars of tax-payer money (much of it borrowed from China, with interest) to pay for a war in Iraq where about 4,000 American troops died in a six-year war (so far) was really worth it, well, you and I have very different priorities.

You're a typical right-wing fucking moron who probably never put on a uniform in your pathetic life, a la Dick "5 deferments" Cheney.
 
Ah, the old standard "but, but, but, BOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSHHHH!".... the last resort of a dead argument.

Both fucking parties constantly do things that actually ARE unconstitutional - whether you consider them to be or not. For decades, they have ignored the constitution - all of them - right and left. It's not an opinion, it's facts. And as for our so called 'SCOTUS' - well, that's laughable.

Stop whining.

Sounds like you're the one whining here :cuckoo:
Note that I'm in FAVOR of the bill that just passed, not whining about how it's gonna undermine my liberty, blah blah.

Interesting that defending the Constitution is whining to you, but harping back to the previous administration is not.

Idiot.

Wow, your impressive array of logic is so convincing! :eek:

Idiot.
 
Sounds like you're the one whining here :cuckoo:
Note that I'm in FAVOR of the bill that just passed, not whining about how it's gonna undermine my liberty, blah blah.

Interesting that defending the Constitution is whining to you, but harping back to the previous administration is not.

Idiot.

Wow, your impressive array of logic is so convincing! :eek:

Idiot.

Sweetie, I don't need to impress you with logic. You haven't posted anything worth any reasoned response. And copying someone is actually kinda sad, dontcha think?

What is it with lefties who can't grasp the simple fact that Bush is no longer POTUS and not every thread should end up with 'Iraq' as a response. You label yourself an idiot - I don't even need to try.

Fool.
 
Another enduring rightwing myth. Most Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war resolution.

Another myth is that the resolution was to go to war with Iraq at all - it wasn't. Congress passed (with almost unanimous Republican support, with the majority of Democrats opposed) a resolution granting President Bush to use any and all means necessary to disarm Iraq, if Iraq failed to comply with UN inspections regimes.

Not 30 days before Bush ordered the invasion, the head of the UN inspection team reported that Iraq was in material compliance with the inspections, and UN forces were already overseeing the destruction of a bunch of medium-range missiles that were banned by a previous UN resolution.

But at this point, it hardly matters, since Bush is out of office and the war is fait accompli.

The more interesting tactic to me, is that so many right-wingers on here keep decrying any reference to Bush - who just left office this fracking year as if it's somehow no longer relevant.

Yah... just like we never heard anything blamed on Clinton once Bush took office.... :cuckoo:

Note.. you should actually try and understand terms of cease fire... does not do much good if the opposition violates and all is wiped out if they say "we agree to the next inspection" as you are about to make them pay... then they violate again... and right before action all is wiped out because they say they will cooperate again

We were fucking justified to take them out the very minute the first violation of the cease-fire agreement happened...

More newbie fucking morons.... jeez...

By your logic we should have several hundred thousand troops fighting in North Korea.

Another loon who thinks invading Iraq was a brilliant idea. The resilience of idiocy is astounding.
 
Interesting that defending the Constitution is whining to you, but harping back to the previous administration is not.

Idiot.

Wow, your impressive array of logic is so convincing! :eek:

Idiot.

Sweetie, I don't need to impress you with logic. You haven't posted anything worth any reasoned response. And copying someone is actually kinda sad, dontcha think?

What is it with lefties who can't grasp the simple fact that Bush is no longer POTUS and not every thread should end up with 'Iraq' as a response. You label yourself an idiot - I don't even need to try.

Fool.

Sweetie (lol), don't worry - you haven't impressed me with your logic at all, and you have yet to post anything other than insults and partisan labels. And wow, you think it's sad? OH NO, that just ruins my whole day! :lol::lol:

What is it with wing-nutes who can't grasp the simple fact that Bush was POTUS up until January this year, and his legacy of incompetence and partisan stupidity are not yet so far in the past as to be irrelevant to many of the topics posted here (including the war in Iraq that he started, the war in Afghanistan that he started, the enormous public debt which he doubled, and so on).

You label yourself an idiot - I don't even need to try.

Fool.
 
Wow, your impressive array of logic is so convincing! :eek:

Idiot.

Sweetie, I don't need to impress you with logic. You haven't posted anything worth any reasoned response. And copying someone is actually kinda sad, dontcha think?

What is it with lefties who can't grasp the simple fact that Bush is no longer POTUS and not every thread should end up with 'Iraq' as a response. You label yourself an idiot - I don't even need to try.

Fool.

Sweetie (lol), don't worry - you haven't impressed me with your logic at all, and you have yet to post anything other than insults and partisan labels. And wow, you think it's sad? OH NO, that just ruins my whole day! :lol::lol:

What is it with wing-nutes who can't grasp the simple fact that Bush was POTUS up until January this year, and his legacy of incompetence and partisan stupidity are not yet so far in the past as to be irrelevant to many of the topics posted here (including the war in Iraq that he started, the war in Afghanistan that he started, the enormous public debt which he doubled, and so on).

You label yourself an idiot - I don't even need to try.

Fool.

just a question for you.

Did you blame the tech bubble and 9/11 on Bill slickster Clinton?

After all he was POTUS for 8 years before GW and his presidency was not so far in the past as to have been irrelevant at the time.
 
Another myth is that the resolution was to go to war with Iraq at all - it wasn't. Congress passed (with almost unanimous Republican support, with the majority of Democrats opposed) a resolution granting President Bush to use any and all means necessary to disarm Iraq, if Iraq failed to comply with UN inspections regimes.

Not 30 days before Bush ordered the invasion, the head of the UN inspection team reported that Iraq was in material compliance with the inspections, and UN forces were already overseeing the destruction of a bunch of medium-range missiles that were banned by a previous UN resolution.

But at this point, it hardly matters, since Bush is out of office and the war is fait accompli.

The more interesting tactic to me, is that so many right-wingers on here keep decrying any reference to Bush - who just left office this fracking year as if it's somehow no longer relevant.

Yah... just like we never heard anything blamed on Clinton once Bush took office.... :cuckoo:

Note.. you should actually try and understand terms of cease fire... does not do much good if the opposition violates and all is wiped out if they say "we agree to the next inspection" as you are about to make them pay... then they violate again... and right before action all is wiped out because they say they will cooperate again

We were fucking justified to take them out the very minute the first violation of the cease-fire agreement happened...

More newbie fucking morons.... jeez...

By your logic we should have several hundred thousand troops fighting in North Korea.

Another loon who thinks invading Iraq was a brilliant idea. The resilience of idiocy is astounding.

the dums approved of the invasion of iraq. now what????
 
Another myth is that the resolution was to go to war with Iraq at all - it wasn't. Congress passed (with almost unanimous Republican support, with the majority of Democrats opposed) a resolution granting President Bush to use any and all means necessary to disarm Iraq, if Iraq failed to comply with UN inspections regimes.

Not 30 days before Bush ordered the invasion, the head of the UN inspection team reported that Iraq was in material compliance with the inspections, and UN forces were already overseeing the destruction of a bunch of medium-range missiles that were banned by a previous UN resolution.

But at this point, it hardly matters, since Bush is out of office and the war is fait accompli.

The more interesting tactic to me, is that so many right-wingers on here keep decrying any reference to Bush - who just left office this fracking year as if it's somehow no longer relevant.

Yah... just like we never heard anything blamed on Clinton once Bush took office.... :cuckoo:

Note.. you should actually try and understand terms of cease fire... does not do much good if the opposition violates and all is wiped out if they say "we agree to the next inspection" as you are about to make them pay... then they violate again... and right before action all is wiped out because they say they will cooperate again

We were fucking justified to take them out the very minute the first violation of the cease-fire agreement happened...

More newbie fucking morons.... jeez...

More pointless ad hominen arguments, which hold no water.

If you think spending a trillion dollars of tax-payer money (much of it borrowed from China, with interest) to pay for a war in Iraq where about 4,000 American troops died in a six-year war (so far) was really worth it, well, you and I have very different priorities.

You're a typical right-wing fucking moron who probably never put on a uniform in your pathetic life, a la Dick "5 deferments" Cheney.

Watch it dickweed.. I am an Army vet.. served my time and did my duty

My arguments basically blew your little assumptions out of the water.. the minute the cease-fire agreement was violated, we were justified in finishing off Saddam's regime... whether that would have been during HW's time, Clinton's time, or W's time...

We have a constitution that charges our government with the waging of wars /military actions and with the defense of the country.... we do not have a constitution that is charged with wealth redistribution on whim or to provide service for personal responsibility for a non-contributor at the expense of a contributor...

but nice try
 
Note.. you should actually try and understand terms of cease fire... does not do much good if the opposition violates and all is wiped out if they say "we agree to the next inspection" as you are about to make them pay... then they violate again... and right before action all is wiped out because they say they will cooperate again

We were fucking justified to take them out the very minute the first violation of the cease-fire agreement happened...

More newbie fucking morons.... jeez...

More pointless ad hominen arguments, which hold no water.

If you think spending a trillion dollars of tax-payer money (much of it borrowed from China, with interest) to pay for a war in Iraq where about 4,000 American troops died in a six-year war (so far) was really worth it, well, you and I have very different priorities.

You're a typical right-wing fucking moron who probably never put on a uniform in your pathetic life, a la Dick "5 deferments" Cheney.

Watch it dickweed.. I am an Army vet.. served my time and did my duty

My arguments basically blew your little assumptions out of the water.. the minute the cease-fire agreement was violated, we were justified in finishing off Saddam's regime... whether that would have been during HW's time, Clinton's time, or W's time...

We have a constitution that charges our government with the waging of wars /military actions and with the defense of the country.... we do not have a constitution that is charged with wealth redistribution on whim or to provide service for personal responsibility for a non-contributor at the expense of a contributor...

but nice try

*Emphasis mine*

Exactly.
 
NY I'm well aware of the conservative coalition and who it was composed of when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was voted upon. However I don't think in my posting I mentioned the word conservative until you brought it up. If you mean to imply that the coalition was composed of only republicans you and I both know that implication would be incorrect. As for your other question, my answer(s) were directed to those that seem to imply that Republicans have no record of support on Civil Rights which is completely untrue, nor when the spin machines turn out the little snipits that Republicans opposed Medicare thats also untrue. I was addressing an earlier posting however, so that your clear on it, I was making it clear that both parties have a record both positive and negative when it comes to Civil Rights and to imply otherwise is to buy into the revisionist persons look at history.

Both parties have a negative record on civil rights because both parties have had conservatives in them over the years.

While I agree with the statement, I would like to know what you define as a conservative? There are many fine conservatives that I've met over the years that would not fall into that all inclusive catagory. Perhaps the reason why opposition to Civil Rights had more to do with products of the culture and less to do with being a conservative. After all, I would not consider for example someone that opposed a Civil Rights on a constitutional basis as being necessarly negative towards civil rights especially if that person had a long record of favoring civil rights legislation. Furhter, people such as Eldridge Cleaver who became a conservative Republican can hardly be considered as having a negative record on civil rights. So I suppose it depends on what you define as conservative.
 
Note.. you should actually try and understand terms of cease fire... does not do much good if the opposition violates and all is wiped out if they say "we agree to the next inspection" as you are about to make them pay... then they violate again... and right before action all is wiped out because they say they will cooperate again

We were fucking justified to take them out the very minute the first violation of the cease-fire agreement happened...

More newbie fucking morons.... jeez...

By your logic we should have several hundred thousand troops fighting in North Korea.

Another loon who thinks invading Iraq was a brilliant idea. The resilience of idiocy is astounding.

the dums approved of the invasion of iraq. now what????

Are you referring to the Democrats? The Democrats in Congress voted 147 - 110 against the Iraq resolution.

But, by all means, try to blame Iraq on the Democrats; it at least reveals your tacit admission that Iraq was a colossal blunder.
 

Forum List

Back
Top