Originally posted by: Harvey
1. With the possible exception of Johnson's lies that took us into Vienam, NOTHING done by ANY previous adminstration is as catastrophic for our nation than the current war of LIES in Iraq.
President Johnson increasingly focused on the American military effort in Vietnam. He firmly believed in the Domino Theory and that his containment policy required America to make a serious effort to stop all Communist expansion. At Kennedy's death, there were 16,000 American military advisors in Vietnam. Johnson expanded their numbers and roles following the Gulf of Tonkin Incident (less than three weeks after the Republican Convention of 1964, which had nominated Barry Goldwater for President).
To this day, questions persist as to the legitimacy of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave the President the exclusive right to use military force without consulting the Senate. It was Johnson who began America's direct involvement in the ground war in Vietnam. By 1968 there were 550,000 American soldiers inside Vietnam; in 1967 and 1968 they were being killed at the rate of over 1000 a month.
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Flake then forced votes on pet Murtha projects -- starting with "something called the Concurrent Technologies Corp." in Johnstown. In the brief time at his disposal, Flake tried to explain to an inattentive House how the company survives as an "incubator" for earmarks "just by getting more earmarks." He next challenged a $39 million earmark for the National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown, which the Pentagon does not need or want. Murtha was coldly dismissive, denying the reality that these no-bid awards do not allow taxpayers to recapture any benefit that the corporations derive from federal expenditures.
Disgusting... there are a few standout Congressmen there but the bulk are just corrupt, especially the long term Congressmen. Look at the arrogance of these people and realize, that Presidents don't really mean jack shit when the "modern day aristocracy runs America"
The only change the Democrats brought to Congress was which flag was at the top of the dung heap.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: JD50
Wow, thats great Harvey, congratulations on being able to give me the definitions "treason" and "murder". Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see you address why he hasn't been charged with ANYTHING. Why would you keep voting for the Democrats that do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to get YOUR TRAITOR IN CHIEF out of office and behind bars when you obviously have a mountain of evidence to prove your charges of murder and treason?
And how in the world is that an irrelevant question? You constantly go into a crazy rant about GWB and his "criminal cabal blah blah" and how you have all of this proof of their crimes, yet you think its an irrelevant question to ask why he hasn't been charged and why you continue to support the people that refuse to bring him up on charges when there is all of this "evidence".
By not charging him and getting him out of office, YOUR Democrats are allowing him to go on murdering Americans every day. Its good to see that you support that, you aren't a hypocrite at all...:roll: :thumbsdown::|:thumbsdown:
Wow what a sad man.
You do realize the Dems barely got control last November and do not have the ability to put your traitor in chief away.
It is sad that they don't have the power to stop the murdering of Americans with a false war by your idles.
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Flake then forced votes on pet Murtha projects -- starting with "something called the Concurrent Technologies Corp." in Johnstown. In the brief time at his disposal, Flake tried to explain to an inattentive House how the company survives as an "incubator" for earmarks "just by getting more earmarks." He next challenged a $39 million earmark for the National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown, which the Pentagon does not need or want. Murtha was coldly dismissive, denying the reality that these no-bid awards do not allow taxpayers to recapture any benefit that the corporations derive from federal expenditures.
Disgusting... there are a few standout Congressmen there but the bulk are just corrupt, especially the long term Congressmen. Look at the arrogance of these people and realize, that Presidents don't really mean jack shit when the "modern day aristocracy runs America"
The only change the Democrats brought to Congress was which flag was at the top of the dung heap.
But you must realize that the disorganized Democrats do much less damage than the lockstepping Republicans.
Originally posted by: mismajor99
I personally can't stand any of them, probably like most seasoned news watchers. Then again, it really depends on who helped the person get elected. Healthcare Industry? Big Pharma? Big Oil? Pick your poison, as their concerns are hardly the people's concerns.
What I'm looking for is a total grass roots candidate independent of both Republicans and Democrats, that raises 100% of their money from the people, unbound by big industry, and unafraid of being shot in the head, which is most likely to happen given the choice to work in favor of the populace, rather than the power brokers. Remember, the people elected to high office are there to keep the status quo, not disturb it, and simply convey the illusion of progress when in fact it's just the opposite.
Originally posted by: mismajor99
I personally can't stand any of them, probably like most seasoned news watchers. Then again, it really depends on who helped the person get elected. Healthcare Industry? Big Pharma? Big Oil? Pick your poison, as their concerns are hardly the people's concerns.
What I'm looking for is a total grass roots candidate independent of both Republicans and Democrats, that raises 100% of their money from the people, unbound by big industry, and unafraid of being shot in the head, which is most likely to happen given the choice to work in favor of the populace, rather than the power brokers. Remember, the people elected to high office are there to keep the status quo, not disturb it, and simply convey the illusion of progress when in fact it's just the opposite.
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Man, you Republicans are a stitch...I love how you've "rediscovered" being anti-government now that your party isn't holding all the power. But let's be honest, this isn't some long-held convicting that you're trying to get the rest of us on board with, most of you conservatives were absolutely in love with the Republican politicians when they were running things. Comparing the Democrats and Republicans at that point would have been a compliment to the Democrats, but of course back then the Republicans were perfect and the Democrats were the scum of the Earth. Now that the Dems are in power, it's back to "they all suck!" like that makes you look any less like a partisan tool.
Bull F'n !@#$(crap). Most Conservatives I know and talk with have not "rediscovered" anything because they didn't lose it. You can make the case that some Republican's elected lost it but you can't paint the rest of us with that broad brush and claim we were "in love" with bloated gov't because it's just not true.
I don't know what you considered it, but the attitude of MOST conservatives towards government as an entity has changed pretty remarkably since, say, 2004. Under the narrow definition that was adopted of "bloated government", you might be right, but I consider everything that expands government power as an activity of "big government", and I didn't hear a peep out of conservatives in regard to the massive government expansion of the last 6 years. You guys might not love the idea of bloated government, but you certainly loved a lot of the aspects of bloated government, from PATRIOT ACT type encroachment on civil liberties to government trying to cram itself into your bedroom to MASSIVE deficit spending on unnecessary wars and unnecessary "anti-terrorism" efforts. And woe be unto anyone who criticized any of that, they were traitors or helping the enemy or some stupid bullshit. That kind of support for the government is NOT what I'd expect from someone who didn't like big government.
But now that you're party isn't in power, it's like you suddenly realized what you allegedly stand for. Suddenly EVERYTHING the government does is wrong, but you're not Democrat bashing, because it's "everyone" in government :roll:. You'll forgive me if I find your ideological stand against the government something less than entirely genuine and more like a cheap political stunt. You say you hate the government now, but you sure as hell didn't before 2006.
Ah, it's great to know you know how Conservative actually think. :roll: You can generalize all you wish but it doesn't make what you say true. Sure, some Conservatives support the narrow things you point out about securing the nation but that doesn't equal "you conservatives were absolutely in love with the Republican politicians when they were running things. Comparing the Democrats and Republicans at that point would have been a compliment to the Democrats, but of course back then the Republicans were perfect..."
And no, you are still wrong - nothing has changed for the Conservatives I talk with like you claim. There are some here that might fit your description(on both sides) but to claim "most" is asinine. Do you happen to remember "Pork Busters"? There have been many things Conservatives have been vocally unhappy with during Bush's Presidency - both with Bush and elected Republicans.
Well, no matter what you say, I seem to remember you fitting into the "pro-big government" category until fairly recently...but fair enough, I will agree that not all conservatives think alike and that not all conservatives have flip-flopped on support for the government as I've suggested. But however many "real" conservatives there were before 2006, it was not a very large number, and they weren't a very loud voice in the conservative movement or the Republican party. Even among the big government conservatives, it wasn't a completely universal ideology, and it didn't apply in every single situation, but this widespread anti-government stance is pretty new from most of the right, whatever you might say. It's certainly new for the conservatives most famous for shooting their mouths off, on TV, the radio and the Internet. Very few of the conservatives here on P&N, for example, were comparing the Republicans to the Democrats in a negative way BEFORE 2006.
And I'm sorry you find my examples inconvenient, but being "anti big government" is an ideological stance that would seem to require you to, you know, oppose big government...and not just when you happen to not like the issue anyways. There is nothing wrong with having a lot of different views on different issues, there is nothing that says you can't be against welfare and in favor of expanded police powers...but when you claim an overriding ideology against government interference, it just sounds like convenient political cover when you seem so selective about when you do and don't like the government.
Originally posted by: JD50
Wow, thats great Harvey, congratulations on being able to give me the definitions "treason" and "murder". Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see you address why he hasn't been charged with ANYTHING.
By not charging him and getting him out of office, YOUR Democrats are allowing him to go on murdering Americans every day. Its good to see that you support that, you aren't a hypocrite at all...:roll: :thumbsdown::|:thumbsdown:
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: JD50
Wow, thats great Harvey, congratulations on being able to give me the definitions "treason" and "murder". Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see you address why he hasn't been charged with ANYTHING.
No maybe about it. You missed everything... as usual. At least, that explains why you vote the way you do.
By not charging him and getting him out of office, YOUR Democrats are allowing him to go on murdering Americans every day. Its good to see that you support that, you aren't a hypocrite at all...:roll: :thumbsdown::|:thumbsdown:
I never said I condone the lack of action by Congress to impeach your Traitor In Chief. Can't forget to get the Vice Traitor at the same time. However, as I said (and you missed), there are a number of political reasons why the Democrats haven't tried to impeach Bush and Cheney, at least yet. One is that the Democratic majority in Congress isn't sufficient to pass bills of impeachment without some Republican support.
There are also reasons why it will be difficult to charge them for their crimes in Federal criminal court, including the fact that the Department of Justice is headed by one of the major criminals, Alberto Gonzales, aka Gonzo the Clown.
At least, you finally admit that, regardless of the reasons, Congress' failure to act is allowing the Bushwhackos "to go on murdering Americans every day" (your words). :thumbsup:
That's a good start, but unless you support that ongoing drain of American blood, why don't you shift gears, rejoin the human race and help us figure out how to get rid of the murdering administration traitors. I'll be glad to work with you if you want to get rid of those in Congress of either party who are actively blocking their impeachment, as well.
Originally posted by: senseamp
Even assuming that both parties are equally bad wrt earmarks, which they are not, you then have to look at their legislative agenda. Republicans are breaks for the rich and big business at all costs, the Democrats are for the poor and middle class.
Additionally, the Republican agenda is almost entirely driven by ideology and faith which take precedence over reality and facts almost every time.
Given that, I'll stick with the Democrats.
Originally posted by: JD50
Actually, I was mocking you....
Nope, doesn't look like I missed anything, if there was a mountain of evidence like you suggest there would be no problem charging Bush, Cheney, and whoever else.
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: senseamp
Even assuming that both parties are equally bad wrt earmarks, which they are not, you then have to look at their legislative agenda. Republicans are breaks for the rich and big business at all costs, the Democrats are for the poor and middle class.
Additionally, the Republican agenda is almost entirely driven by ideology and faith which take precedence over reality and facts almost every time.
Given that, I'll stick with the Democrats.
You forgot to add that Republicans eat babies... :roll:
Talk about being blinded.... sheesh.
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: senseamp
Even assuming that both parties are equally bad wrt earmarks, which they are not, you then have to look at their legislative agenda. Republicans are breaks for the rich and big business at all costs, the Democrats are for the poor and middle class.
Additionally, the Republican agenda is almost entirely driven by ideology and faith which take precedence over reality and facts almost every time.
Given that, I'll stick with the Democrats.
You forgot to add that Republicans eat babies... :roll:
Talk about being blinded.... sheesh.
Right, so basically you got nothing, so you are building a strawman. Good luck with that.
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: senseamp
Even assuming that both parties are equally bad wrt earmarks, which they are not, you then have to look at their legislative agenda. Republicans are breaks for the rich and big business at all costs, the Democrats are for the poor and middle class.
Additionally, the Republican agenda is almost entirely driven by ideology and faith which take precedence over reality and facts almost every time.
Given that, I'll stick with the Democrats.
You forgot to add that Republicans eat babies... :roll:
Talk about being blinded.... sheesh.
Right, so basically you got nothing, so you are building a strawman. Good luck with that.
Uhhh There is no need to deconstruct your post as it should be plainly obvious to anyone without their leftist blinders on that you only see what you want to see(or believe it because you've been told so by your leaders).
Keep on being blind if you wish...
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: senseamp
Even assuming that both parties are equally bad wrt earmarks, which they are not, you then have to look at their legislative agenda. Republicans are breaks for the rich and big business at all costs, the Democrats are for the poor and middle class.
Additionally, the Republican agenda is almost entirely driven by ideology and faith which take precedence over reality and facts almost every time.
Given that, I'll stick with the Democrats.
You forgot to add that Republicans eat babies... :roll:
Talk about being blinded.... sheesh.
Right, so basically you got nothing, so you are building a strawman. Good luck with that.
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: JD50
Actually, I was mocking you....
... and in doing so, you accidentally spoke the truth, the same way truth escapes from Administration mouthpieces.
Well, thanks, anyway, for confirming you approve of squandering the lives of all those American troop who died for their lies. You'll probably be cheering even more as the death toll continues to rise, today, tomorrow, and as long as we're stuck in their useless, deadly quagmire in Iraq.
Nope, doesn't look like I missed anything, if there was a mountain of evidence like you suggest there would be no problem charging Bush, Cheney, and whoever else.
Yep! You missed every issue I raised, including links to support them. The reason is obvious. Didn't your mother tell you, if you didn't stop it, you'd go blind? :shocked: :laugh:
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: senseamp
Even assuming that both parties are equally bad wrt earmarks, which they are not, you then have to look at their legislative agenda. Republicans are breaks for the rich and big business at all costs, the Democrats are for the poor and middle class.
Additionally, the Republican agenda is almost entirely driven by ideology and faith which take precedence over reality and facts almost every time.
Given that, I'll stick with the Democrats.
You forgot to add that Republicans eat babies... :roll:
Talk about being blinded.... sheesh.
Right, so basically you got nothing, so you are building a strawman. Good luck with that.
Uhhh There is no need to deconstruct your post as it should be plainly obvious to anyone without their leftist blinders on that you only see what you want to see(or believe it because you've been told so by your leaders).
Keep on being blind if you wish...
It's not that there is no need to deconstruct my post, it's that your limited logical ability leaves you with no way to do so, and hence you feel the need to erect a strawman that is a bit easier for you to handle, the whole cliche "eat babies" line.
Shouldn't you look at the mess that the guy you voted for left behind before you call anyone else blind?
You are the one with the blinders on.
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: senseamp
Even assuming that both parties are equally bad wrt earmarks, which they are not, you then have to look at their legislative agenda. Republicans are breaks for the rich and big business at all costs, the Democrats are for the poor and middle class.
Additionally, the Republican agenda is almost entirely driven by ideology and faith which take precedence over reality and facts almost every time.
Given that, I'll stick with the Democrats.
You forgot to add that Republicans eat babies... :roll:
Talk about being blinded.... sheesh.
Right, so basically you got nothing, so you are building a strawman. Good luck with that.
Uhhh There is no need to deconstruct your post as it should be plainly obvious to anyone without their leftist blinders on that you only see what you want to see(or believe it because you've been told so by your leaders).
Keep on being blind if you wish...
It's not that there is no need to deconstruct my post, it's that your limited logical ability leaves you with no way to do so, and hence you feel the need to erect a strawman that is a bit easier for you to handle, the whole cliche "eat babies" line.
Shouldn't you look at the mess that the guy you voted for left behind before you call anyone else blind?
You are the one with the blinders on.
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: JD50
Wow, thats great Harvey, congratulations on being able to give me the definitions "treason" and "murder". Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see you address why he hasn't been charged with ANYTHING.
No maybe about it. You missed everything... as usual. At least, that explains why you vote the way you do.
By not charging him and getting him out of office, YOUR Democrats are allowing him to go on murdering Americans every day. Its good to see that you support that, you aren't a hypocrite at all...:roll: :thumbsdown::|:thumbsdown:
I never said I condone the lack of action by Congress to impeach your Traitor In Chief. Can't forget to get the Vice Traitor at the same time. However, as I said (and you missed), there are a number of political reasons why the Democrats haven't tried to impeach Bush and Cheney, at least yet. One is that the Democratic majority in Congress isn't sufficient to pass bills of impeachment without some Republican support.
There are also reasons why it will be difficult to charge them for their crimes in Federal criminal court, including the fact that the Department of Justice is headed by one of the major criminals, Alberto Gonzales, aka Gonzo the Clown.
At least, you finally admit that, regardless of the reasons, Congress' failure to act is allowing the Bushwhackos "to go on murdering Americans every day" (your words). :thumbsup:
That's a good start, but unless you support that ongoing drain of American blood, why don't you shift gears, rejoin the human race and help us figure out how to get rid of the murdering administration traitors. I'll be glad to work with you if you want to get rid of those in Congress of either party who are actively blocking their impeachment, as well.
Actually, I was mocking you....
Nope, doesn't look like I missed anything, if there was a mountain of evidence like you suggest there would be no problem charging Bush, Cheney, and whoever else. The American people would be behind it, so the Republicans in congress would go along.
But, it is kind of funny to see you get all batshit crazy psycho about it in every post, then you just make excuses for the Dems in power doing absolutely nothing about it.
BTW, who is "actively blocking their impeachment"?
Originally posted by: JD50
I see that you are now competing with Dave for being the biggest troll on this board, good luck, you have my vote.
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: JD50
I see that you are now competing with Dave for being the biggest troll on this board, good luck, you have my vote.
Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment. Dave's a bit brash, but he's right about the issues far more often than you.
You still haven't even tried to refute ANYTHING I said, because YOU CAN'T. Now, the best you can do is stoop to name calling, and you're piss poor at that, as well. :laugh:
Originally posted by: senseamp
Even assuming that both parties are equally bad wrt earmarks, which they are not, you then have to look at their legislative agenda. Republicans are breaks for the rich and big business at all costs, the Democrats are for the poor and middle class.
Additionally, the Republican agenda is almost entirely driven by ideology and faith which take precedence over reality and facts almost every time.
Given that, I'll stick with the Democrats.