600 days to go until our national nightmare is over

[maineman]

The fact is they passed the law that they thought everybody wanted, it should have tanked only the President when he vetoed it, instead they all tanked because they insist that their position is what everybody wants. They are all wrong on that, or somebody's approval would be a bit up.

again...don't you think that congress's approval rating may have suffered when they were unable to override the veto?

 

[no1tovote4]

nobody is listening to the constituency? 57% of Americans thought that the democrat's plan for funding the troops was a great idea. do you think that the low approval ratings for congress might be, in part, due to their inability to end this war?

No, once again, people are smart enough to realize they don't have a veto-proof majority. It is simplistic to assume it is because they were unable to overturn that veto they have a low rating. Their rating was low while they passed this law, it remained low as it was vetoed and is still remaining low. It may be that they are asking the wrong question.

I think their low approval rating is because they insist on only asking about their positions rather than listening to what people think is important.

It is fun to see somebody twisting in the wind hoping beyond all logic to convince me that the Ds are doing what the people want while their approval ratings, even personal ones of people who insist that the war must end (Reid) tank even more than Bush's. Seriously, if the war was all it was about then Reid would be one of the highest rated Senators, not at barely above 1/4 among his own constituency.

 

[no1tovote4]

It's like watching the coach of the Washington Generals insist that his team is teh win and that they pWn!!1one shift+1!

 

[maineman]

well... I object to your characterizing me as "twisting in the wind"... but I realize that you love to hold yourself up as this remarkably intelligent and impartial oracle... and you always have. I still like ya 'though!

I happen to believe in my party's platform. I happen to believe that adoption of my party's platform is in the best interests of America.

The people are disgusted with all of government now. The mere change of a few seats in congress is not going to make them instantaneously less sour. When a democrat is in the white house and the democratic majority is strengthened in congress, laws will start getting passed that will improve the public's opinion of both the executive and the congress.

 

[no1tovote4]

well... I object to your characterizing me as "twisting in the wind"... but I realize that you love to hold yourself up as this remarkably intelligent and impartial oracle... and you always have. I still like ya 'though!

I happen to believe in my party's platform. I happen to believe that adoption of my party's platform is in the best interests of America.

The people are disgusted with all of government now. The mere change of a few seats in congress is not going to make them instantaneously less sour. When a democrat is in the white house and the democratic majority is strengthened in congress, laws will start getting passed that will improve the public's opinion of both the executive and the congress.

I believe in my party's platform and believe that if they followed it they would still be in power. I think it is likely that the poor rating of the Ds may be related to that. I believe that the party's loss of power came from their eagerness to emulate the Ds. Passing Pill Bills, overspending, Nation-building... the more they acted like Ds the less they were popular. Now every time somebody mentions open borders Bush loses 4 more popularity points in those polls and the Ds aren't doing much better.

 

[maineman]

I believe in my party's platform and believe that if they followed it they would still be in power. I think it is likely that the poor rating of the Ds may be related to that. I believe that the party's loss of power came from their eagerness to emulate the Ds. Passing Pill Bills, overspending, Nation-building... the more they acted like Ds the less they were popular. Now every time somebody mentions open borders Bush loses 4 more popularity points in those polls and the Ds aren't doing much better.

while I twist here in the wind, let me say that I disagree... I think your party was doomed the day we entered Iraq. It took America long enough - too damned long IMHO - to realize that Bush had sold them a pig in a poke and that the republican party was blindly following him, but they ARE, in fact, coming to that conclusion. And your 2008 nominee will have that like an albatross around his neck. Do you think there might be just a little bit of politics behind American commanders being authorized to reach out to insurgent groups to negotiate ceasefires?

 

[no1tovote4]

while I twist here in the wind, let me say that I disagree... I think your party was doomed the day we entered Iraq. It took America long enough - too damned long IMHO - to realize that Bush had sold them a pig in a poke and that the republican party was blindly following him, but they ARE, in fact, coming to that conclusion. And your 2008 nominee will have that like an albatross around his neck. Do you think there might be just a little bit of politics behind American commanders being authorized to reach out to insurgent groups to negotiate ceasefires?

Probably. The "blindly following" part is part of my whole rant from before. The President wins promising no nation-building and enters one of the hugest nation-building efforts ever. The fact that neither party is speaking to the declaration issue ends any idea that they have the best interest of the US at heart over partisan politics. Whatever gains them power seems to be the rule of the day.

 

[red states rule]

and I think if you read the news reports in any detail, you will see that it is American commanders on the ground who have been authorized to reach out to insurgents and propose cease fires....not the other way around.

We are dictating terms MM

and the tide is turning in Iraq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...53100455.html?hpid=moreheadlines?hpid=topnews

 

[maineman]

We are dictating terms MM

and the tide is turning in Iraq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...53100455.html?hpid=moreheadlines?hpid=topnews

the point is: you claimed that it was the insurgents who were asking for a cease fire...we are doing the asking..and we can "dictate" all the terms we want....has anyone stopped shooting at us and agreed to those terms we "dictate"?

and the "tide is turning"??? I sure as fuck hope it turns the other way.. May was the third deadliest month for America in the whole fucking war. whatever happened to that 60% decrease in casualties due to the success of the surge? Check the figures...we are losing more troops than ever!

 

[red states rule]

the point is: you claimed that it was the insurgents who were asking for a cease fire...we are doing the asking..and we can "dictate" all the terms we want....has anyone stopped shooting at us and agreed to those terms we "dictate"?

and the "tide is turning"??? I sure as fuck hope it turns the other way.. May was the third deadliest month for America in the whole fucking war. whatever happened to that 60% decrease in casualties due to the success of the surge? Check the figures...we are losing more troops than ever!

Using your logic, you would said Ike was losing the battle on D Day given how many US troops died on that day

 

[maineman]

Using your logic, you would said Ike was losing the battle on D Day given how many US troops died on that day

no... Ike never asked the American military to be occupational policemen in the middle of a gunfight between folks who wanted to kill each other and neither side cared much for us.

 

[red states rule]

no... Ike never asked the American military to be occupational policemen in the middle of a gunfight between folks who wanted to kill each other and neither side cared much for us.

There is not a civil war going on

The people in Iraq are starting to fight back against the terrorists. they are fed up with the terrorists - and they see the Dems lost on their surrender bill - so they know we will be leaving them high and dry

 

[maineman]

There is not a civil war going on

The people in Iraq are starting to fight back against the terrorists. they are fed up with the terrorists - and they see the Dems lost on their surrender bill - so they know we will be leaving them high and dry

that sentence makes no sense.

and you continue to ignore the issue of sunni-shiite violence and enmity.

 

[red states rule]

that sentence makes no sense.

and you continue to ignore the issue of sunni-shiite violence and enmity.

so they know we will NOT be leaving them high and dry

They are fighting back and killing terrorists

 

[maineman]

seems like you missed this:

and you continue to ignore the issue of sunni-shiite violence and enmity

oh...never mind, you didn't miss it, you are ignoring it!

 

[red states rule]

seems like you missed this:

and you continue to ignore the issue of sunni-shiite violence and enmity

oh...never mind, you didn't miss it, you are ignoring it!

ah, the glass is half empty view of things

 

[maineman]

ah, the glass is half empty view of things

keep ignoring my question.... you really can't seem to ever do anything but

 

[red states rule]

keep ignoring my question.... you really can't seem to ever do anything but

When one problem is solved, libs find something else to whine about

 

[maineman]

my issue has always been sunni-shiite conflict. I have never thought that AQ in Iraq was anything that the Iraqis could not or would not solve.

YOU are the one who said if we left, we would hand Iraq over to terrorists...who exactly were you talking about?

 

[red states rule]

my issue has always been sunni-shiite conflict. I have never thought that AQ in Iraq was anything that the Iraqis could not or would not solve.

YOU are the one who said if we left, we would hand Iraq over to terrorists...who exactly were you talking about?

AQ and Iran for starters