Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Republicans Vote Against Funding Troops in Iraq
- Thread starter jasendorf
- Start date
- Feb 12, 2007
- 59,384
- 24,018
- 2,290
This is the more telling chart: Mandatory (read: Entitlements) vs. Discretionary spending. The trajectory is appalling.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_S/s8.cfm
EDIT: And the projections: http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_P/p9.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_S/s8.cfm
EDIT: And the projections: http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_P/p9.cfm
CSM
Senior Member
This is the more telling chart: Mandatory (read: Entitlements) vs. Discretionary spending. The trajectory is appalling.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_S/s8.cfm
EDIT: And the projections: http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_P/p9.cfm
Or he could do his own research:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/index.html
So much wisdom to impart and so little time.
Can someone tell me if these guys are always this stupid or if today was a special occasion. Your spending rant is no more honest than the surrender rant. So which "D" is it? Dishonest or Dumb?
Well said.
Declared to be unconstitutional if memory serves. I like signing statements better. First it clarifies how the executive will apply the new law and second, well, it infuriates congress to no end.
Just for fun, please answer the Gunny's question. Had we had a real president from 92 to 00 the problem wouldn't have arisen. Had I been President, they would only now be able to consider filling in all the smoking holes.
Smartest thing you've said the entire thread. I'm gonna wait and see if it was real or just a broken clock being right twice a day.
And just how the hell do you know? I mean c'mon spending all them years in the Army ...... obviously you and others were just too dumb to get real jobs, like say uh news reporter for the LA Times. Sheesh. CSM pretty soon you are going to master the rudiments of using a fork and spoon instead of scooping with a c-rat cracker. Look, all I'm saying is don't be fucking up perfectly good stereotypes. Ok?
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...x?guid={4F72C9E6-2F70-435E-AF75-A2FD18C9F022}
Why won't the Republicans fund our troops? Eveindently politics are more important to them than our troops in harm's way.
Now President Bush is going to veto funding our troops? Evidently he didn't see the news on election night this past November and would prefer to stick to his ideological battle instead of working for the will of the people.
I think this was the PERFECT strategy for the democrats. They dont want to cut off funding but, they want our troops home by next year so this answers both problems. And if the president veto's this, he will look like someone who just wants the money to prolong his war past 2008, as if it matters....he's gone next year anyway. I think president Bush is trying really hard to make himself the worst president of all time before he leaves office. And the democrats are trying to bring our troops home by the time he leaves. Next year will literally be a new era, a new start, and a breath of much needed fresh air.
Can someone tell me if these guys are always this stupid or if today was a special occasion. Your spending rant is no more honest than the surrender rant. So which "D" is it? Dishonest or Dumb?
A more honest title would be "GOP votes against attaching earmarked pork to funding for our troops and setting them up for failure by giving the enemy a deadline to await their departure".
Well said.
It's long past time to get rid of earmarks and to allow the President a line item veto.
Declared to be unconstitutional if memory serves. I like signing statements better. First it clarifies how the executive will apply the new law and second, well, it infuriates congress to no end.
So what did Bill do after the terrorists attacked US interests overseas four times in eight years? Oh, he took out an aspirin factory - a terrorist threat on a grand scale
Just for fun, please answer the Gunny's question. Had we had a real president from 92 to 00 the problem wouldn't have arisen. Had I been President, they would only now be able to consider filling in all the smoking holes.
Spoken like a true 80's 90's CSM...
We're at war. Those who make outrageous profits off of us while we're at war have been called "war profiteers" in previous wars... and punished as such.
But, God forbid was ask for these companies and their shareholders to make any sacrifices for their country.
Smartest thing you've said the entire thread. I'm gonna wait and see if it was real or just a broken clock being right twice a day.
Bad news for you. Neither of those two articles accurately describe the procurement process for the US military. Nice try, however.
And just how the hell do you know? I mean c'mon spending all them years in the Army ...... obviously you and others were just too dumb to get real jobs, like say uh news reporter for the LA Times. Sheesh. CSM pretty soon you are going to master the rudiments of using a fork and spoon instead of scooping with a c-rat cracker. Look, all I'm saying is don't be fucking up perfectly good stereotypes. Ok?
Vintij
Senior Member
So much wisdom to impart and so little time.
Can someone tell me if these guys are always this stupid or if today was a special occasion. Your spending rant is no more honest than the surrender rant. So which "D" is it? Dishonest or Dumb?
Well said.
Declared to be unconstitutional if memory serves. I like signing statements better. First it clarifies how the executive will apply the new law and second, well, it infuriates congress to no end.
Just for fun, please answer the Gunny's question. Had we had a real president from 92 to 00 the problem wouldn't have arisen. Had I been President, they would only now be able to consider filling in all the smoking holes.
Smartest thing you've said the entire thread. I'm gonna wait and see if it was real or just a broken clock being right twice a day.
And just how the hell do you know? I mean c'mon spending all them years in the Army ...... obviously you and others were just too dumb to get real jobs, like say uh news reporter for the LA Times. Sheesh. CSM pretty soon you are going to master the rudiments of using a fork and spoon instead of scooping with a c-rat cracker. Look, all I'm saying is don't be fucking up perfectly good stereotypes. Ok?
Why did you call me dishonest and dumb? Yea real classy of you, with nothing to bring to the table and all, another worthless attack at someone who is clearly more educated than you in the realm of political debate. Say something usefull, dont waste our time, even CSM would agree on that. AND CSM, I showed you the proof, a harvard professor does not get to be a harvard professor by lying, and allowing people to critisize his lies. Why would he lie? He obviously did the research and so did I, thats why i chose his well written article.
Why did you call me dishonest and dumb, do you have better facts?
I didn't. I asked which were you, Dishonest or Dumb. I guess you answered my question huh? Reading is fundamental. Key on the mental part OK?
Let me break it down for you.
The bill wasn't only spending for the troops. If it was that would be a first, single source bill.
It also attempted to place restrictions on the constitutionally mandated authority of the Commander in Chief. IOW they can defund the troops, but they cannot tell the boss when to come back. IOW they can write a bill revoking the congressional vote on the authority to use force, but they cannot attempt to place a timetable into a bill. There are ways to get what they want, but they are too chickenshit to openly do it.
It also included billions (that's real money BTW) in non war related spending. This type of bill is exempted from the caps that limit different legislature. In effect they attempted to write two checks where only one qualified by law. Look it up.
So, castigating the republicans for voting "no" by saying they won't fund the troops is intellectually dishonest. BTW it is equally disingenuous to try to scream about pork etc.
I'm now typing really slow so everyone should get it....... The entire bill was an abortion.
Back to typing regular speed.
Here's how a bill should be marked up.
1. One topic only. No riders, amendments etc, that are not part of the title topic.
2. Cite the source of funds and establish an upper limit in dollars.
3. Establish an expiration date.
4. Cite chapter and verse the pertinent language of the Constitutiton that authorises your friends and neighbors to impose the law they are drafting.
Standing by for questions.
CSM
Senior Member
Why did you call me dishonest and dumb? Yea real classy of you, with nothing to bring to the table and all, another worthless attack at someone who is clearly more educated than you in the realm of political debate. Say something usefull, dont waste our time, even CSM would agree on that. AND CSM, I showed you the proof, a harvard professor does not get to be a harvard professor by lying, and allowing people to critisize his lies. Why would he lie? He obviously did the research and so did I, thats why i chose his well written article.
Oh gee, I guess you win again...I mean a Harvard professor would NEVER lie! When I said "research" I meant searching for facts,; not opinions that agree with your own...
As for being more educated than that 'other' poster in political debate, I have more bad news for you....you are not!
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
Dangerous Demagoguery
By Thomas Sowell
One of the dangers in being a demagogue is that some of your own supporters -- those who take you literally -- can turn against you when you start letting your actions be influenced by realities, instead of following the logic of your ringing rhetoric.
That is what seems to be happening to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other liberal Democrats in Congress.
Anti-war protesters in Washington and outside her home in San Francisco are denouncing Pelosi and other Congressional Democrats for not cutting off the money to fight the war in Iraq.
If the war in Iraq is such an unnecessary and futile expenditure of blood and treasure as Pelosi et al. have been saying, why not put an end to it?
But to do that would mean taking responsibility for the consequences -- and those consequences would be disastrous and lasting. They would probably still be lasting when the 2008 elections come around.
The Democrats cannot risk that. They have taken over Congress by a very clever and very disciplined strategy of constantly criticizing the Republicans, without taking the risk of presenting an alternative for whose results they can be held responsible.
There is no sign that they want to change that politically winning strategy now. Their non-binding resolutions against the war are a perfect expression of that strategy.
These resolutions put them on record as being against the war without taking the responsibility for ending it.
Unfortunately for the Congressional Democrats, their left-wing supporters have taken the anti-war rhetoric of Pelosi, Murtha, et al., at face value and consider it a betrayal that they talk the talk but will not walk the walk.
It has been painfully clear that Speaker Pelosi was serious only about scoring political points. Her big grin when she won a narrow vote for a non-binding resolution was grotesque against the background of a life-and-death issue.
You don't grin over a political ploy that you have pulled when men's lives are at stake.
It is not just Congressional politicians who are so preoccupied with scoring points against the administration that they show no sign of concern for what the actual consequences of their words or actions will be for troops in the field, nations in the Middle East, or the global war on terror.
Much of the media is similarly caught up in scoring points on Iraq. For example, the cover of the March 18th issue of the New York Times magazine section featured a story about women in the military who said that they had been raped in Iraq.
A week later, they had to print a correction, after discovering that one of these women had not even been to Iraq. But any unsubstantiated charge against the American military rates headline coverage, even if there is no space for anything positive in Iraq.
There is apparently no space even to assess the extent to which the increase of American troop strength in Iraq has reduced the deaths of our troops from terrorist attacks. Nor is there apparently much space to discuss the implications of the return of Iraqis from the less violent provinces to their homes in Baghdad.
Indeed, there has apparently never been any space to discuss the fact that most provinces in Iraq have not had the levels of violence featured day in and day out in the media.
The demagoguery of the Democrats has already put them in the position where a successful conclusion of the Iraq war before the 2008 elections can be a political disaster for them.
If the recent increase in the number of troops in Iraq, and their freer hand in dealing with the terrorists there, reduces the level of violence enough to stabilize Iraq enough for American troops to start coming home before the 2008 elections, the Democrats will have lost their gamble.
Only an American defeat in Iraq can ensure the Democrats' political victory next year. Their only strategy is to sabotage the chances for a military victory in Iraq without being held responsible for a defeat.
That is the corner that they have painted themselves into with their demagoguery that even their own supporters see through.
Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/dangerous_demagoguery.html
By Thomas Sowell
One of the dangers in being a demagogue is that some of your own supporters -- those who take you literally -- can turn against you when you start letting your actions be influenced by realities, instead of following the logic of your ringing rhetoric.
That is what seems to be happening to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other liberal Democrats in Congress.
Anti-war protesters in Washington and outside her home in San Francisco are denouncing Pelosi and other Congressional Democrats for not cutting off the money to fight the war in Iraq.
If the war in Iraq is such an unnecessary and futile expenditure of blood and treasure as Pelosi et al. have been saying, why not put an end to it?
But to do that would mean taking responsibility for the consequences -- and those consequences would be disastrous and lasting. They would probably still be lasting when the 2008 elections come around.
The Democrats cannot risk that. They have taken over Congress by a very clever and very disciplined strategy of constantly criticizing the Republicans, without taking the risk of presenting an alternative for whose results they can be held responsible.
There is no sign that they want to change that politically winning strategy now. Their non-binding resolutions against the war are a perfect expression of that strategy.
These resolutions put them on record as being against the war without taking the responsibility for ending it.
Unfortunately for the Congressional Democrats, their left-wing supporters have taken the anti-war rhetoric of Pelosi, Murtha, et al., at face value and consider it a betrayal that they talk the talk but will not walk the walk.
It has been painfully clear that Speaker Pelosi was serious only about scoring political points. Her big grin when she won a narrow vote for a non-binding resolution was grotesque against the background of a life-and-death issue.
You don't grin over a political ploy that you have pulled when men's lives are at stake.
It is not just Congressional politicians who are so preoccupied with scoring points against the administration that they show no sign of concern for what the actual consequences of their words or actions will be for troops in the field, nations in the Middle East, or the global war on terror.
Much of the media is similarly caught up in scoring points on Iraq. For example, the cover of the March 18th issue of the New York Times magazine section featured a story about women in the military who said that they had been raped in Iraq.
A week later, they had to print a correction, after discovering that one of these women had not even been to Iraq. But any unsubstantiated charge against the American military rates headline coverage, even if there is no space for anything positive in Iraq.
There is apparently no space even to assess the extent to which the increase of American troop strength in Iraq has reduced the deaths of our troops from terrorist attacks. Nor is there apparently much space to discuss the implications of the return of Iraqis from the less violent provinces to their homes in Baghdad.
Indeed, there has apparently never been any space to discuss the fact that most provinces in Iraq have not had the levels of violence featured day in and day out in the media.
The demagoguery of the Democrats has already put them in the position where a successful conclusion of the Iraq war before the 2008 elections can be a political disaster for them.
If the recent increase in the number of troops in Iraq, and their freer hand in dealing with the terrorists there, reduces the level of violence enough to stabilize Iraq enough for American troops to start coming home before the 2008 elections, the Democrats will have lost their gamble.
Only an American defeat in Iraq can ensure the Democrats' political victory next year. Their only strategy is to sabotage the chances for a military victory in Iraq without being held responsible for a defeat.
That is the corner that they have painted themselves into with their demagoguery that even their own supporters see through.
Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/dangerous_demagoguery.html
Vintij
Senior Member
Oh gee, I guess you win again...I mean a Harvard professor would NEVER lie! When I said "research" I meant searching for facts,; not opinions that agree with your own...
As for being more educated than that 'other' poster in political debate, I have more bad news for you....you are not!
Why is nobody making sense anymore? Is it cool now, to not make sense?
-You dont know my credentials
-you dont know his credentials
Therfore, that leads me to believe you dont know who is more educated in the realm of political debate. You claimed he was. Thats not even an educated guess, Its an uneducated opinion.
Why am I so good? You ask?
Sometimes I really am amazing at debate, but its not hard when your debating people who dont really research anything.
Also, sure harvard professors can lie. They are human, but I was trying to explain to you that I personally did the research myself and found it was true, but I chose his article because it was written better than I could have explained it. He was not lying in the article, though your right.....harvard professors can lie if they want to. Congratulations, you proved anyone can lie if they want to, something that was known since the dawn of man. Want a cookie? What else are you going to find out, that someone will get a tummy ache if they go swimming after lunch?
CSM
Senior Member
Why is nobody making sense anymore? Is it cool now, to not make sense?
-You dont know my credentials
-you dont know his credentials
Therfore, that leads me to believe you dont know who is more educated in the realm of political debate. You claimed he was. Thats not even an educated guess, Its an uneducated opinion.
Why am I so good? You ask?
Sometimes I really am amazing at debate, but its not hard when your debating people who dont really research anything.
Also, sure harvard professors can lie. They are human, but I was trying to explain to you that I personally did the research myself and found it was true, but I chose his article because it was written better than I could have explained it. He was not lying in the article, though your right.....harvard professors can lie if they want to. Congratulations, you proved anyone can lie if they want to, something that was known since the dawn of man. Want a cookie? What else are you going to find out, that someone can be both right and wrong at the same time?
Get back to me when you grow up...I have news for you...not everyone is as gullible or naive as you are or want them to be. You found an article that agrees with your POV...not true facts and figures...the links I provided at least did that! Name calling on a message board does not make you a master of debate either...despite what your friends tell you.
Vintij
Senior Member
Get back to me when you grow up...I have news for you...not everyone is as gullible or naive as you are or want them to be. You found an article that agrees with your POV...not true facts and figures...the links I provided at least did that! Name calling on a message board does not make you a master of debate either...despite what your friends tell you.
Isnt that what i told you when you called me an idiot?
I believe it was.
If you dont like me, put me on your ignore list. Otherwise, be prepared to put up a decent argument with a troll. The ones with the gems on there bellys.
CSM
Senior Member
Isnt that what i told you when you called me an idiot?
I believe it was.
If you dont like me, put me on your ignore list. Otherwise, be prepared to put up a decent argument with a troll. The ones with the gems on there bellys.
Ignore it is then.
Vintij
Senior Member
Ignore it is then.
What a tool. See how easy it is to influence action kids?
Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,827
- 1,790
What a tool. See how easy it is to influence action kids?
LOL! Hardly, you've managed to get one of the best posters to ignore you. Guess you just want the dregs. Ok, I'll throw you on ignore too, as you seem to bring nothing to the table.
Vintij
Senior Member
LOL! Hardly, you've managed to get one of the best posters to ignore you. Guess you just want the dregs. Ok, I'll throw you on ignore too, as you seem to bring nothing to the table.
Actually, he keeps messaging me, I ignored him just right now. Though i dont see any reason to ignore you. Do I offend you? If I did, indirectly, my appologiez. Though I do disagree with you, he is not the best poster here. He has been here longer, thats all. I know who the best posters are, hes not one of them. The just likes to attack me, and others, usually by calling me a child, a troll, an idiot. Things of that nature.
Why did you call me dishonest and dumb? Scroll up, read, repeat as needed. Yea real classy of you, with nothing to bring to the table and all, Son I loaded the table. Problem is that your keyboard is writing checks your intellect cannot cash. another worthless attack at someone who is clearly more educated than you in the realm of political debate. I am glad you are educated. Of course that doesn't mean you are intelligent or intellectually honest, but hey, we will work on your flaws one at a time. Say something usefull, dont waste our time, even CSM would agree on that. Ya know, I think he would agree to that. But, you might want to start by taking your own advice.
I noticed after I posted, you changed your tune and edited your post to add the belligerent stuff. Got an attack of courage huh? I notice that you didn't respond to any of the comments made after I clarified things for you.
Your concession is noted.
Vintij
Senior Member
Just a reminder, I ALWAYS respond, even when I agree to disagree. When i dont respond, It is because i see no point adding to your already struggling argument. There is no point debating with you on this issue, you have lost already. Plus the relevance to the thread was fading. But if you want me to concede, then sure. I do.
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
Vieira to McCain About War Opponents: 'What Are We Missing?'
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on March 28, 2007 - 07:46.
Having participated in an anti-war march in NYC at the time of the 2004 GOP convention, there's been little doubt as to where Meredith Vieira stands on Iraq. Even so, it was something of a shock to hear the "Today" co-host express her opposition in the first person plural this morning.
Discussing the war with Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] at about 7:05 AM ET this morning, she said:
"Six out of ten Americans don't agree [with you]. They want a pull-out from Iraq. So what are we missing? When you say we are succeeding, based on what?"
Give credit to Meredith for candor, but one more reason for NBC to stop pretending it doesn't lean left.
View video here.
Credit McCain for hitting a Dem nail on the head a bit earlier in the exchange. In the set-up piece, a clip was played of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] saying on the Senate floor: "This war is not worth the spilling of another drop of American blood."
MCCAIN: If that's true, that why doesn't Senator Reid and the Democrats propose cutting off funding and bring them home tomorrow? Why wait 18 months?
EARLY SHOW BONUS COVERAGE: Interviewing McCain over on CBS, co-host Hannah Storm demonstrated how hard it is for members of the MSM to understand Republican politics, it being so foreign to them.
STORM: Senator, turning to the presidential race, in many polls you've fallen behind Rudy Giuliani among Republican voters. Are you concerned that your position on this war, and your support of sending more troops in, might cost you your dream of becoming president?
MCCAIN: It may but I can't worry about it, Hannah. . This is too important. This is far more important than any political ambition I might have. I'd much rather lose a campaign than lose a war.
Nicely said, but surely McCain understands what Storm doesn't. First, that McCain's support for the surge and opposition to setting a date for withdrawal is indistinguishable from Giuliani's and Romney's. Second, it is precisely McCain's support for the war that is keeping him in the Republican primary race.
There's a perfect illustration of what happens to otherwise-conservative Republicans like Chuck Hagel [R-NE] who oppose the war. They hold press conferences announcing that they might announce in a year, meaning they realize they have no chance in a Republican primary. McCain has faltered not because he has been too staunch a war supporter but because of his insufficient conservatism on tax cuts, campaign finance reform and immigration
But how could you expect an MSMer to understand that?
http://newsbusters.org/node/11675
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on March 28, 2007 - 07:46.
Having participated in an anti-war march in NYC at the time of the 2004 GOP convention, there's been little doubt as to where Meredith Vieira stands on Iraq. Even so, it was something of a shock to hear the "Today" co-host express her opposition in the first person plural this morning.
Discussing the war with Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] at about 7:05 AM ET this morning, she said:
"Six out of ten Americans don't agree [with you]. They want a pull-out from Iraq. So what are we missing? When you say we are succeeding, based on what?"
Give credit to Meredith for candor, but one more reason for NBC to stop pretending it doesn't lean left.
View video here.
Credit McCain for hitting a Dem nail on the head a bit earlier in the exchange. In the set-up piece, a clip was played of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] saying on the Senate floor: "This war is not worth the spilling of another drop of American blood."
MCCAIN: If that's true, that why doesn't Senator Reid and the Democrats propose cutting off funding and bring them home tomorrow? Why wait 18 months?
EARLY SHOW BONUS COVERAGE: Interviewing McCain over on CBS, co-host Hannah Storm demonstrated how hard it is for members of the MSM to understand Republican politics, it being so foreign to them.
STORM: Senator, turning to the presidential race, in many polls you've fallen behind Rudy Giuliani among Republican voters. Are you concerned that your position on this war, and your support of sending more troops in, might cost you your dream of becoming president?
MCCAIN: It may but I can't worry about it, Hannah. . This is too important. This is far more important than any political ambition I might have. I'd much rather lose a campaign than lose a war.
Nicely said, but surely McCain understands what Storm doesn't. First, that McCain's support for the surge and opposition to setting a date for withdrawal is indistinguishable from Giuliani's and Romney's. Second, it is precisely McCain's support for the war that is keeping him in the Republican primary race.
There's a perfect illustration of what happens to otherwise-conservative Republicans like Chuck Hagel [R-NE] who oppose the war. They hold press conferences announcing that they might announce in a year, meaning they realize they have no chance in a Republican primary. McCain has faltered not because he has been too staunch a war supporter but because of his insufficient conservatism on tax cuts, campaign finance reform and immigration
But how could you expect an MSMer to understand that?
http://newsbusters.org/node/11675
- Thread starter
- #59
Being awarded construction bids for the purpose of resonstructing a country and war profiteering are not mutually inclusive. Construction companies tht do not make a profit are no longer in business. Overhead ain't cheap, and from what I've heard offered, they're paying a pretty penny to get qualified tradesmen to risk going.
Then, we could offer the jobs to all those Iraqi tradesmen standing in line ....
You are talking about something different from what I am talking about.
You're talking about operating expense. I'm talking about profit. Is it expensive to rebuild a country you've destroyed? Sure. Should CEOs and shareholders be getting crazy rich because of it? No.
- Thread starter
- #60
LOL! Hardly, you've managed to get one of the best posters to ignore you. Guess you just want the dregs. Ok, I'll throw you on ignore too, as you seem to bring nothing to the table.
Now THAT'S funny sh*t!
"One of the best posters"????? He's nothing but a distractor and a hyper-partisan. If he doesn't like the way a thread is going, he tries to change the subject... and, if that doesn't work, he calls any substantive evidence "biased" or "lies" as if every study posted by his debating opposition is part of some vast left-wing conspiracy.
Then, once you've completely obliterated his non-debating debate style and held him to the topic, he calls you a troll and then announces in mock-triumph how he is putting you on ignore.
CSM has one thing going for him in debate here... longevity at USMB... nothing more.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 236
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 413
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 472
- Replies
- 132
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 31
- Views
- 501
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 86
- Views
- 483
- Replies
- 62
- Views
- 438
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8032
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-