David Broder To Reid - "Shut Up"

[red states rule]

once again....you cannot back up your own bullshit. why am I not surprised?

no one wants to lose the war.... but a majority of americans back the democrats plan to set atimetable for withdrawal based upon the actions of the Iraqis.... if they want to stop killing one another and killing us and sit down and form a government, that is great...if they don't, they don't need us to shed any more blood for them.

again.... will you PLEASE quit using the word surrender when you have been shown repeatedly that it is an inappropriate and inaccurate word?

Dems are pressing for surrender - that is a fact

You do not like it being called what it is - that is your problem

Dems are a bunch of appeasers - with few exceptions like Joe Lieberman

 

[maineman]

Dems are pressing for surrender - that is a fact

You do not like it being called what it is - that is your problem

Dems are a bunch of appeasers - with few exceptions like Joe Lieberman

no... surrender requires turning over something to your enemy. We would be turning over everything to the legitimate government of Iraq.

A question: Did Britain "surrender" Palestine in the spring of 1948?

 

[red states rule]

no... surrender requires turning over something to your enemy. We would be turning over everything to the legitimate government of Iraq.

A question: Did Britain "surrender" Palestine in the spring of 1948?

and that is what Dems want to do with Iraq

hand it over on a silver platter to the terrorists and Iran

 

[maineman]

and that is what Dems want to do with Iraq

hand it over on a silver platter to the terrorists and Iran

why can't you answer a simple question?

 

[red states rule]

why can't you answer a simple question?

I have - you don't get it

That is not my problem

 

[maineman]

I have - you don't get it

That is not my problem

no...you didn't;

answer this simple question with a simple yes or no:

Did Britain "surrender" Palestine in the spring of 1948?

 

[Gunny]

It doesn't get simpler than, "They, together with the President, are to manage all our concerns with foreign nations. They must understand all their interests and their political systems." Alexander Hamilton, speaking of the Senate, made this statement. The President does not enjoy a single foreign policy power in Article II that is not held by the Senate and Congress in general. He can do nothing of himself in these matters including matters of war. If you wish to insist that the President is the sole arbitrator of foreign policy you are essentially disagreeing with our Founding Fathers. What some Judge said in an opinion means little to me because even a moron like you can become a Judge. If you can provide one foreign policy power that the President has which is not held by the Congress than I would be really interested as the Constitution makes it clear that the foreign policy powers rests with the Senate and Congress and that the President only has those powers by extension of the Congress. Simply put, "the foreign policy powers of the United States rests with Congress and they are the sole arbitrator on matters of foreign policy and while the President can do certain things when approved by Congress he can do nothing which is not approved by Congress. His powers are limited and he is essentiallhy carrying out the Congress foreign policy powers. My link is the Constitution and the words of the Founding Fathers while yours is to link to the opinions of fucking morons such as yourself who had the time to write their retarded opinion on a piece of paper. Now shut the fuck up, get appointed to the federal bench and write the shit you just wrote and I will shit on it like I shit on the retarded opinions of morons such as yourself who disagree with the Constitution and those who actually drafted it.

The legal ruling by the Supreme Court says otherwise. It is one of the two links I posted.

The opinions of the founding fathers do not supercede SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution. In fact, just the opposite is true.

If YOU don't like it, YOU can take it up with SCOTUS since it is their ruling, not mine.

And for a moron, I'm sure doing a standup job of whipping your ass.

 

[Gunny]

I will speak anyway I want and if you don't like it bitch then fuck off and vote for an ass who agrees with you because I will not play your fucking games as you and motherfuckers who agree with you violate my rights whether you assholes do it as citizens or as an elected official. I also will not pisss off as you and bitches who represent you violate my rights and claim that your opinion of the Constitution is correct. You whether a citizen or an elected official are still an asshole and I will tell you to fuck off and suck your cock and take your retarded, false opinion and shove it up your ass and tell you to cease and desist being a tryant or fucking face the consequence that the British did for violating the British constitution.

So get it through your fucking head. I don't give a shit that you can pontificate out of your ass about the meaning of the Constitution because the British and their representatives pontificated about the meaning of the British constitution too and our Founding Fathers taught bitches like you who lived there a lesson they will never forget which is that our rights are sacred to us and that no opinion can be used to justify a violation of our rights. Now take your power trip and fuck off and vote for a jackass such as yourself as I am sure there are a bunch of bitches in your city who agrees with your interpretation of the Constitution and I am sure that some of them will make it to the Supreme Court like the imbecile Sammy Alito who dropped out of his mother's whore of a vagina. Is that nice enough for you. Does it make you feel good that you can debate and vote like a little bitch and violate my rights because a bastard in your town or state runs for office whio agrees with your silly ass?

Again, you are incorrect in so many ways. The Constitution is fact, as well as the legal ruling by SCOTUS. Not my opinion, nor my interpretation.

I realize you're having a tough time with that, but do try to accept the reality of the situation. You don't have to like it.

I must admit that it DOES make me feel good to allow you the opportunity to prove for yourself what a mannerless, out-of-touch-with-reality, and uneducated individual you are.

 

[Gunny]

As a side note for those of you who have read what I have said to GunnyL I think you should be aware that one of the worst side-effects of our system of government is that some people think that since they can vote that this means that they can violate the rights of others and that since they have an opinion about the meaning of the Constitution that it is correct and yet the truth does remain that the Constitution while a great document only stands if it is based on the fact that the people have a say in all matters of our government and GunnyL is arguing that our representatives have no say in foreign policy and I for one will gladly revolt and repeat what Patrick Henry said which was, "give me liberty or give me death" if this is the case. I do not intend to stand by as the people who Bush represents make decisions that I and my representatives do not have a say in and I don't care how twisted you are or what your interpetation of the Constitution is because a) you are wrong about what the Constitution means if you believe that it gives the President the powers of a king and b) if you believe that since you have the right to vote and to elect those who agree with you it does not change the fact that so did those who lived in the Colonies and yet they had to revolt and it is an accepted fact that the British form of government was republican in nature and yet it was wrong in how it was implemented. Had tbe British followed their own constitution than a revolution would have been unnecessary and this is true of our current government as well. Jefferson believed that a revolution may well be necessary every couple of generations because those who would oppress would seek to do so and yet he has so far been proven wrong (except in the case of the American Civil War where the North violated the rights of the south by levying unfair taxes on southern states that northern states did not have to pay).

As a sidenote, try "Reading is Fundamental" to hopefully cure the obvious problem you have with accepting fact and discerning between it and my opinion.

 

[Annie]

It sems the voters do NOT approve of what the Dems are doing

How the hell are you going to spin this MM

Blame Rush, Sean, and Fox News?

According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, 61% of Americans oppose “denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq,” and opposition is up from 58% in February. (3/23-25, 2007).


A Bloomberg poll reveals 61% of Americans believe withholding funding for the war is a bad idea, while only 28% believe it is a good idea (3/3-11, 2007).
A recent Public Opinion Strategies (POS) poll found that 56% of registered voters favor fully funding the war in Iraq, with more voters strongly favoring funding (40%) than totally opposing it (38%); (3/25-27, 2007).
POS found also that a majority of voters (54%) oppose the Democrats imposing a reduction in troops below the level military commanders requested (3/25-27, 2007).
A separate POS poll finds 57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and “the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.” And 59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm America’s reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (35%); (2/5-7, 2007).
A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll show 69% of American voters trust military commanders more than members of Congress (18%) to decide when United States troops should leave Iraq. This includes 52% of Democrats, 69% of Independents and 88% of Republicans (3/27-28, 2007).
According to a recent Pew Research survey, only 17% of Americans want an immediate withdrawal of troops (4/18-22, 2007). That same poll found a plurality of adults (45%) believe a terrorist attack against the United States is more likely if we withdraw our troops from Iraq while the “country remains unstable”
Should a date for withdrawal be set, 70% of American believe it is likely that “insurgents will increase their attacks in Iraq” starting on that day. This is supported by 85% of Republicans, 71% of Independents and 60% of Democrats. (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 4/17-18, 2007).
An LA Times/Bloomberg polls reveals that 50% of Americans say setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq “hurts” the troops, while only 27% believe it “helps” the troops (4/5-9, 2007).
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...YyNDA2ZThlMTg=

RSR, this is spamming. I'm sorry, but it is. I've clicked last posted and this has come up at least 3 times. 2 should be deleted. Gunny?

 

[red states rule]

Done

 

[Gunny]

Done

You could just link to the original post. I'm quite sure that would meet both your requirements and be in compliance with the rules.

 

[red states rule]

You could just link to the original post. I'm quite sure that would meet both your requirements and be in compliance with the rules.

and I deleted the post when told

 

[Gunny]

and I deleted the post when told

I offered a suggestion. Lighten up and THINK. If you post the article once, and wish to use it again, just link to the post you originally posted the article in. Trust me, it won't hurt a bit.

 

[maineman]

and my answer as to how I would "spin" it, not that that is needed, is that RSR's "new" poll is more than a month old. Why not post the results of the November '04 "poll" that showed a majority of Americans thinking Bush would do a better job than Kerry.

Bottom line: it is old news AND misleading.....and no one is suggesting withholding funding...the democrats just passed a bill PROVIDING funding. They also provide a non-binding suggestion from Congress regarding when we say "enough is enough". The american people, in a much more RECENT poll, support THAT approach.

How are YOU gonna spin THAT, RSR?

 

[red states rule]

and my answer as to how I would "spin" it, not that that is needed, is that RSR's "new" poll is more than a month old. Why not post the results of the November '04 "poll" that showed a majority of Americans thinking Bush would do a better job than Kerry.

Bottom line: it is old news AND misleading.....and no one is suggesting withholding funding...the democrats just passed a bill PROVIDING funding. They also provide a non-binding suggestion from Congress regarding when we say "enough is enough". The american people, in a much more RECENT poll, support THAT approach.

How are YOU gonna spin THAT, RSR?

Why is it libs want to govern by polls that go their way - but dismiss out of hand polls that go against them

The Dem Congress has approval ratings in the low 30's - the people want to win in Iraq and Dems want to surrender

Dems will have no choice but to provide funding without a surrender date - it will be fun to watch libs contain their anger at them

 

[maineman]

Why is it libs want to govern by polls that go their way - but dismiss out of hand polls that go against them

The Dem Congress has approval ratings in the low 30's - the people want to win in Iraq and Dems want to surrender

Dems will have no choice but to provide funding without a surrender date - it will be fun to watch libs contain their anger at them

you post a month old poll that says america doesn't want to surrender. I agree with that poll and would have said so if asked. Nobnody wants us to SURRENDER.

I posted a recent poll from WSJ that says that America agrees with the piece of legislation just passed by congress.... that funds the war but sets nonbinding dates to start bringing them home. Americans agree with that and not with you and Bush.

 

[red states rule]

and the terrorists are delighted with the Dems surrender plan

 

[Gunny]

and the terrorists are delighted with the Dems surrender plan

This line didn't work when you tried it on me.

 

[red states rule]

This line didn't work when you tried it on me.

Then read it - the terrorists are very happy

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55424