I Thought Libs Supported Free Speech

Well I would think that if what Edward says is true (that there are major 1st ammendment issues here) a dem would have had the ACLU ready in a heart beat. Pretending for a second that I don't understand the constitution, the fact we haven't heard a peep from them is good enough evidence for me that no such issue exists.

The left claims they support people having a choice - as long as the lefties agree with the choice

Nobody forces anyone to listen to Rush and Sean - and if a storm is heading for FL they will NOT be on the air anyway. The station will be broadcasting storm related information
 
Your claim is without merit. But then you already know that. This is just another example of obfusication when ones "points" do not add up nor survive reason.

I have yet to read an insightful logical rebuttal. My reasoning is sound. It seems as though the USA will establish bases in Iraq whether or not the Iraqi people and/or Iraqi government want them or not.

I can see it now.... The United States will FORCE Iraq to let us keep troops there because, after all, we are just Nazi wanna bes anyway. The dems and the repubs will of course openly support this because they ALL think it a grand idea. That would be the looney Toons part. That you can, with a straight face claim that we can establish bases in a country that doesn't want us WHEN everyone is howling for us to LEAVE NOW. I guess I missed using my super secret decoder ring on the Constitution where it lets the President appropriate money for the military with out Congressional approval AND do it for longer than 2 years at a time.

UNLESS of course your claiming that secretly while the DEMs demand we leave, they are really making plans to create permanent bases as soon as a Dem wins the White House.

It is so typical of people to try to put words into other people’s mouths. I never said that the USA consists of Nazi wanna bes. I also understand that Congress appropriates money for operations in Iraq. The executive branch determines how to spend it within any parameters that congress might assign.

Based on web sites that I have seen, it is reasonable to conclude that Iraqis do not want the USA to have permanent military bases in Iraq. I have a simple and straight-forward question for you – Yes or No - Do you have hard statistical evidence that suggests otherwise? If so, simply provide a link to it. This should not be too difficult for you. Yet, in all likelihood, you will continue to spout off non sequiturs concerning Loony Tunes and decoder rings.
 
Your claim is without merit. But then you already know that. This is just another example of obfusication when ones "points" do not add up nor survive reason.

I can see it now.... The United States will FORCE Iraq to let us keep troops there because, after all, we are just Nazi wanna bes anyway. The dems and the repubs will of course openly support this because they ALL think it a grand idea. That would be the looney Toons part. That you can , with a straight face claim that we can establish bases in a country that doesn't want us WHEN everyone is howling for us to LEAVE NOW. I guess I missed using my super secret decoder ring on the Constitution where it lets the President appropriate money for the military with out Congressional approval AND do it for longer than 2 years at a time.

UNLESS of course your claiming that secretly while the DEMs demand we leave, they are really making plans to create permanent bases as soon as a Dem wins the White House.

http://indexresearch.blogspot.com/2006/04/iraqs-usuk-permanent-bases-intentional.html

In an Agence France report on 11 March ‘06, Zalmay Khalilzad, one of the signers of the 1998 PNAC letter to President Clinton supporting regime change in Iraq, and since November ’05 the US ambassador in Baghdad, said his country “did not want permanent military bases in Iraq and that he was willing to talk to Iran about the war-torn country's future.”

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/177.php?nid=&id=&pnt=177&lb=hmpg2

Seventy-one percent of respondents said that the US should not have permanent military bases in Iraq, up slightly from 67 percent who had this view in 2004. This is a bipartisan position, with 60 percent of Republicans as well as 82 percent of Democrats holding this view. The majority rises to 86 percent “if the newly elected Iraqi government is opposed to the US having permanent military bases.”

http://www.fpif.org/fpifoped/3224

More importantly, the people of Iraq want us to leave. Many members of the newly elected parliament advocate the removal of occupation forces as soon as possible. Given that, keeping a permanent presence is immoral and indefensible. It further unites the various factions of the Iraqi people fighting against us. Failing to declare our intent not to maintain a permanent presence will bring havoc to Iraq, plays into the hands of terrorists by feeding resentment and despair while helping to recruit more members for the insurgency.

Finally, check out this:

http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=4988





If the new Iraqi government were to set a timeline for the US to withdraw within six months or two years, a large majority believes that the US should agree to do so. However, most think the US would not comply with such a request. Most assume that the Iraqi people want such a timeline.
 
Based on web sites that I have seen, it is reasonable to conclude that Iraqis do not want the USA to have permanent military bases in Iraq. I have a simple and straight-forward question for you – Yes or No - Do you have hard statistical evidence that suggests otherwise? If so, simply provide a link to it. This should not be too difficult for you. Yet, in all likelihood, you will continue to spout off non sequiturs concerning Loony Tunes and decoder rings.

the question isn't really whether the US wishes to establish a permanent base in Iraq. I'd grant you that. The question is would we establish one even if we were asked not to by the Iraqi government? I don't think so.
 
the question isn't really whether the US wishes to establish a permanent base in Iraq. I'd grant you that. The question is would we establish one even if we were asked not to by the Iraqi government? I don't think so.

Thanks for the civil simple reply. We agree to disagree. I think that unless the new government of Iraq says, “No”, very loudly and angrily enough, we will establish and keep military bases in Iraq. In our own self-righteous way of muscling in, we will argue that we rescued Iraq and saved its people. The Bush team might make some quiet concessions or bribe the Iraqi government into agreeing with us – or perhaps say something like, “Look, you need us here so we are going to say here and continue to help whether you like it or not." We will try our best to convince the Iraqis (or at least the Iraqi government) to “let us” establish and keep permanent military bases.

After all, the Iraqi people want us to leave but we are not going to leave any time soon.
 
Thanks for the civil simple reply. We agree to disagree. I think that unless the new government of Iraq says, “No”, very loudly and angrily enough, we will establish and keep military bases in Iraq. In our own self-righteous was of muscling in, we will argue that we rescued Iraq and saved its people. The Bush team might make some quiet concessions or bribe the Iraqi government into agreeing with us – or perhaps say something like, “Look, you need us here so we are going to say here and continue to help whether you like it or not." We will try our best to convince the Iraqis (or at least the Iraqi government) to “let us” establish and keep permanent military bases.

After all, the Iraqi people want us to leave but we are not going to leave any time soon.

I'd even grant you it would seem the most likely place to establish a base. I think the what will happen though is that Bush will be out of office before it becomes a real issue.

In the war on terror it probably isn't stupid to have a well fortified forward command base in that region. Yes, yes maybe that was the plan all along.
 
I have yet to read an insightful logical rebuttal. My reasoning is sound. It seems as though the USA will establish bases in Iraq whether or not the Iraqi people and/or Iraqi government want them or not.



It is so typical of people to try to put words into other people’s mouths. I never said that the USA consists of Nazi wanna bes. I also understand that Congress appropriates money for operations in Iraq. The executive branch determines how to spend it within any parameters that congress might assign.

Based on web sites that I have seen, it is reasonable to conclude that Iraqis do not want the USA to have permanent military bases in Iraq. I have a simple and straight-forward question for you – Yes or No - Do you have hard statistical evidence that suggests otherwise? If so, simply provide a link to it. This should not be too difficult for you. Yet, in all likelihood, you will continue to spout off non sequiturs concerning Loony Tunes and decoder rings.

What a crock. It does NOT matter what the Iraqis want in this discussion.... you supported the claim the US would make permanent bases in Iraq with or without Iraq's permission. This claim is ludicrous. It ignores the fact the current president has less than 2 years remaining in office, it IGNORES the fact that the majority party in both houses of Congress are DEMANDING we pull out completely, it ignores the fact that liberals keep insisting they have polls showing 70 percent of the people in this country want us out of Iraq completely.

Now, if in fact you do NOT think we will just build bases, then you are mistaken that my comment was directed to you.
 
the question isn't really whether the US wishes to establish a permanent base in Iraq. I'd grant you that. The question is would we establish one even if we were asked not to by the Iraqi government? I don't think so.

You have got to be joking. The history of U.S. military installations around the world demonstrates that is exactly what we do. First, we can take the military base at Guantanomo Bay, Cuba as a perfect example. Repeatedly, the government of Cuba has stated that they do not want a military base there and they have asked us to leave but to this day we still have a base there. According to one source, the United States had 702 military bases in over 36 distinct countries. The location of these bases serve no real purpose other than to intimidate the countries they are in and surrounding countries because it is quite easy to deploy our armed forces as necessary to confront any problem that would threaten our security. So why do we keep these bases? What purpose do they serve? The answer to that is quite obvious. When you have a military organization that spans the globe you have only one purpose and that purpose is the same as the Roman Empire (or Republic) which is to build a military empire.

I do not doubt for a minute that the opinions of the Iraqis matter to us and we have already demonstrated the the only opinion of the Iraqis we care about are those Iraqis who agree with us and the rest of them we don't have a problem killing them if they defy us and those Iraqis who agree with us. We call them insurgents and terrorists and then we take put a bullet in their head and say, "had they simply did as we had said we would not have had to kill them but they questioned the authority of our government." I am not saying that the insurgents are correct or that their behavior is acceptable but I am noting that when push comes to shove the opinions of other people means nothing to us just like the opinion of Saddam Hussein and those who supported him meant nothing to us. We taught him a lesson that the world will not forget which is "you are either with us or against us and if we think you are against us you are as good as dead...."

It's time that we as Americans faced the fact that Patrick Henry was correct when he warned us that we would become one "consolidated empire" if we adopted the Constitution. He and others of his time envisioned what would happen if we adopted the Constitution. There are many people including previous Presidents who have warned us of the consequences of the course we have chosen but we have ignored them to the point that now we have a President who is the de facto elected King of the United States and whose authority is above that of actual kings who have come before. Now is the time for us to decide whether we want our country to be an Empire or whether we would prefer a more benign form of government and whether we would like a Republic and if that is the case than we must do away with the form of government insituted by the supporters of the British form of government including Alexander Hamilton who openly supported appointing the President for life, and who praised the British form of government and James Madison who believed that the proper role of government was to protect the opulent from the majority.

There were even people who warned that the only people who would serve in Congress would belong to a certain class of society while the rest would not be chosen because they would not be able to do so. Take for example, all those who work for less than $30,000 a year will never serve in Congress or become President of the United States. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people who do not have representation and whose voice in government simply does not exist. These are the people that have ben convinced that they have a say in their government because they can vote but we shouldn't forget that the British House of Commons was elected also but that the House of Lords was not. Interesting enough, the Senate which was modeled after the House of Lords was also not elected (thankfully liberals changed that), and the House of Representatives was which was modeled after the House of Commons.

So, the choice is simple. Do we want a representative republic or do we continue to support the Empire established by the Constitution simply because liberals were able to successfully advocate for a Bill of Rights.
 
This is such crap. New orleans was not 100% black, and im so tired of this partisan politcal crap.

Everyone failed on katrina, the mayor of new orleans, democrat, the congress lady of louisiana screwed up, so did congress, of BOTH parties, who had the last 40 years to fix this. political partisanship is wrong, and so is gotcha politics, no matter who does it. Cant we get together to solve anything?.

Only the right would leave a city full of black people suffer for DAYS after a hurrincae flooded their city. Republicans at their best..

OWNED !!!!!!
 

Forum List

Back
Top