Law School Discussion

Off-Topic Area => Politics and Law-Related News => Topic started by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 23, 2005, 09:33:01 PM

Title: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 23, 2005, 09:33:01 PM
after murtha's speech...a vote was taken...and the people have spoken...

overwhelmingly...403-3...


democrats while wobbling...keep ball in play...
elephants force the issue.

px.o.rsta

no matter how the "washed-up-post" propagandizes (props-up)...these numbers 403-3 DO NOT lie!


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/20/AR2005112000179.html
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: jg983 on November 23, 2005, 10:57:06 PM
after murtha's speech...a vote was taken...and the people have spoken...

overwhelmingly...403-3...


democrats while wobbling...keep ball in play...
elephants force the issue.

px.o.rsta

no matter how the "washed-up-post" propagandizes (props-up)...these numbers 403-3 DO NOT lie!


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/20/AR2005112000179.html

Twisted ... the vote was for an "immediate pullout" from Iraq -- not even the most hardcore Democrat (well, ok, maybe three of them) believes that's a good idea. The Republicans forced it to go to a vote on those terms to make the Dems look like fools. This is a pointless post.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: Julie Fern on November 24, 2005, 06:59:16 AM
he talking to his fellow appliances, which voted 15-2 against immediate pullout.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 24, 2005, 01:55:25 PM
This is a pointless post.

i'm trying to figure out who his target audience is.  who is he trying to convince of what, and why?

sad.   :)

murtha is a democrat aye like...

when given the opportunity to support the real deal of immediate withdrawal from iraq in a house vote...they turned tail and voted 403 – 3 against the measure...weeping loudly...they left murtha standing alone bending over...with his pants down near his ankles...

how dare republicans force donkees to commit to their rhetoric...boo hoooo...the dems are crying...

donkees bray that it is "w's" war...bullszhite...the House voted 296–133 to go for it...in their "so decreed" "bush's war"...many of whom were democrats... the senate voted 77–23 to authorize the mission in iraq...many of whom were democrats...

bush "the american cowboy" wanted to "git hussein no matter what. please, intelligent...historically minded...hell...common sense minded people? the clinton administration is who authored and passed a congressional resolution in 1998 making "regime change" the FORMAL us policy on iraq. bush only finished what Clinton started…with the support of congress...

the congress is still in full support of "getting the job done"...and getting it done right.

democrats forced to decide...and said...let's go with bush!!!

liberals are a bunch of say one thing do something else panzies!!!

the vote proves this!!
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: jg983 on November 24, 2005, 02:17:07 PM
This is a pointless post.

i'm trying to figure out who his target audience is.  who is he trying to convince of what, and why?

sad.   :)

murtha is a democrat aye like...

when given the opportunity to support the real deal of immediate withdrawal from iraq in a house vote...they turned tail and voted 403 – 3 against the measure...weeping loudly...they left murtha standing alone bending over...with his pants down near his ankles...

how dare republicans force donkees to commit to their rhetoric...boo hoooo...the dems are crying...

donkees bray that it is "w's" war...bullszhite...the House voted 296–133 to go for it...in their "so decreed" "bush's war"...many of whom were democrats... the senate voted 77–23 to authorize the mission in iraq...many of whom were democrats...

bush "the american cowboy" wanted to "git hussein no matter what. please, intelligent...historically minded...hell...common sense minded people? the clinton administration is who authored and passed a congressional resolution in 1998 making "regime change" the FORMAL us policy on iraq. bush only finished what Clinton started…with the support of congress...

the congress is still in full support of "getting the job done"...and getting it done right.

democrats forced to decide...and said...let's go with bush!!!

liberals are a bunch of say one thing do something else panzies!!!

the vote proves this!!


I don't know if this is intended to provoke a response from Julie alone -- you've certainly accomplished the formidable task of making your posts as unreadable and pointless as hers.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: Julie Fern on November 24, 2005, 04:45:43 PM
This is a pointless post.

i'm trying to figure out who his target audience is. who is he trying to convince of what, and why?

sad. :)

murtha is a democrat aye like...

when given the opportunity to support the real deal of immediate withdrawal from iraq in a house vote...they turned tail and voted 403 – 3 against the measure...weeping loudly...they left murtha standing alone bending over...with his pants down near his ankles...

how dare republicans force donkees to commit to their rhetoric...boo hoooo...the dems are crying...

donkees bray that it is "w's" war...bullszhite...the House voted 296–133 to go for it...in their "so decreed" "bush's war"...many of whom were democrats... the senate voted 77–23 to authorize the mission in iraq...many of whom were democrats...

bush "the american cowboy" wanted to "git hussein no matter what. please, intelligent...historically minded...hell...common sense minded people? the clinton administration is who authored and passed a congressional resolution in 1998 making "regime change" the FORMAL us policy on iraq. bush only finished what Clinton started…with the support of congress...

the congress is still in full support of "getting the job done"...and getting it done right.

democrats forced to decide...and said...let's go with bush!!!

liberals are a bunch of say one thing do something else panzies!!!

the vote proves this!!


I don't know if this is intended to provoke a response from Julie alone -- you've certainly accomplished the formidable task of making your posts as unreadable and pointless as hers.

mizz dorkus, is it?
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: Julie Fern on November 24, 2005, 04:46:41 PM
I don't know if this is intended to provoke a response from Julie alone -- you've certainly accomplished the formidable task of making your posts as unreadable and pointless as hers.

i disagree. julie's posts may be lacking in grammar, but at least she says what she wants to say in one line, making her posts infinitely more readable.

you fine american, and undoubtedly well-hung.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: BoscoBreaux on November 24, 2005, 05:17:21 PM
after murtha's speech...a vote was taken...and the people have spoken...

overwhelmingly...403-3...


democrats while wobbling...keep ball in play...
elephants force the issue.

px.o.rsta

no matter how the "washed-up-post" propagandizes (props-up)...these numbers 403-3 DO NOT lie!


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/20/AR2005112000179.html

Not even Murtha called for an immediate pull-out. The more relevant polls indicate most Americans believe going to Iraq was a mistake (and a hefty percentage of them think Bush lied).  Bush still does not think it was a bad idea. Then, you consider the 95% of the rest of the planet who thinks it was a mistake (80% of Brits, for example--and they even went to war with us!). Now, who is out of touch?
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 24, 2005, 08:47:30 PM
This is a pointless post.

i'm trying to figure out who his target audience is.  who is he trying to convince of what, and why?

sad.   :)

murtha is a democrat aye like...

when given the opportunity to support the real deal of immediate withdrawal from iraq in a house vote...they turned tail and voted 403 – 3 against the measure...weeping loudly...they left murtha standing alone bending over...with his pants down near his ankles...

how dare republicans force donkees to commit to their rhetoric...boo hoooo...the dems are crying...

donkees bray that it is "w's" war...bullszhite...the House voted 296–133 to go for it...in their "so decreed" "bush's war"...many of whom were democrats... the senate voted 77–23 to authorize the mission in iraq...many of whom were democrats...

bush "the american cowboy" wanted to "git hussein no matter what. please, intelligent...historically minded...hell...common sense minded people? the clinton administration is who authored and passed a congressional resolution in 1998 making "regime change" the FORMAL us policy on iraq. bush only finished what Clinton started…with the support of congress...

the congress is still in full support of "getting the job done"...and getting it done right.

democrats forced to decide...and said...let's go with bush!!!

liberals are a bunch of say one thing do something else panzies!!!

the vote proves this!!


I don't know if this is intended to provoke a response from Julie alone -- you've certainly accomplished the formidable task of making your posts as unreadable and pointless as hers.

sorry you missed the point. ;)

this vote quiets those folks who do not support the troops...those who forget that the democrats wanted this war as well...those who continually criticise the war...and the "do-nothings" who just blame everything on bush.

get it?

it's like a "shut the fuch up" and lets finish the job...shall we.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: jg983 on November 24, 2005, 09:34:26 PM
This is a pointless post.

i'm trying to figure out who his target audience is.  who is he trying to convince of what, and why?

sad.   :)

murtha is a democrat aye like...

when given the opportunity to support the real deal of immediate withdrawal from iraq in a house vote...they turned tail and voted 403 – 3 against the measure...weeping loudly...they left murtha standing alone bending over...with his pants down near his ankles...

how dare republicans force donkees to commit to their rhetoric...boo hoooo...the dems are crying...

donkees bray that it is "w's" war...bullszhite...the House voted 296–133 to go for it...in their "so decreed" "bush's war"...many of whom were democrats... the senate voted 77–23 to authorize the mission in iraq...many of whom were democrats...

bush "the american cowboy" wanted to "git hussein no matter what. please, intelligent...historically minded...hell...common sense minded people? the clinton administration is who authored and passed a congressional resolution in 1998 making "regime change" the FORMAL us policy on iraq. bush only finished what Clinton started…with the support of congress...

the congress is still in full support of "getting the job done"...and getting it done right.

democrats forced to decide...and said...let's go with bush!!!

liberals are a bunch of say one thing do something else panzies!!!

the vote proves this!!


I don't know if this is intended to provoke a response from Julie alone -- you've certainly accomplished the formidable task of making your posts as unreadable and pointless as hers.

sorry you missed the point. ;)

this vote quiets those folks who do not support the troops...those who forget that the democrats wanted this war as well...those who continually criticise the war...and the "do-nothings" who just blame everything on bush.

get it?

it's like a "shut the fuch up" and lets finish the job...shall we.

Yes, I suppose it "quiets" the ridiculously small minority of Americans who:
A) Believe that "the troops" are somehow to blame for the mismanagement of the war in Iraq
B) Deny the FACT that a majority of Democrats supported the invasion at one point
However, the people who are party to either A or B are so stupid that no act of Congres will pacify or convince them. So really, YOU should shut the @#!* up.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 24, 2005, 09:45:20 PM
This is a pointless post.

i'm trying to figure out who his target audience is.  who is he trying to convince of what, and why?

sad.   :)

murtha is a democrat aye like...

when given the opportunity to support the real deal of immediate withdrawal from iraq in a house vote...they turned tail and voted 403 – 3 against the measure...weeping loudly...they left murtha standing alone bending over...with his pants down near his ankles...

how dare republicans force donkees to commit to their rhetoric...boo hoooo...the dems are crying...

donkees bray that it is "w's" war...bullszhite...the House voted 296–133 to go for it...in their "so decreed" "bush's war"...many of whom were democrats... the senate voted 77–23 to authorize the mission in iraq...many of whom were democrats...

bush "the american cowboy" wanted to "git hussein no matter what. please, intelligent...historically minded...hell...common sense minded people? the clinton administration is who authored and passed a congressional resolution in 1998 making "regime change" the FORMAL us policy on iraq. bush only finished what Clinton started…with the support of congress...

the congress is still in full support of "getting the job done"...and getting it done right.

democrats forced to decide...and said...let's go with bush!!!

liberals are a bunch of say one thing do something else panzies!!!

the vote proves this!!


I don't know if this is intended to provoke a response from Julie alone -- you've certainly accomplished the formidable task of making your posts as unreadable and pointless as hers.

sorry you missed the point. ;)

this vote quiets those folks who do not support the troops...those who forget that the democrats wanted this war as well...those who continually criticise the war...and the "do-nothings" who just blame everything on bush.

get it?

it's like a "shut the fuch up" and lets finish the job...shall we.

Yes, I suppose it "quiets" the ridiculously small minority of Americans who:
A) Believe that "the troops" are somehow to blame for the mismanagement of the war in Iraq
B) Deny the FACT that a majority of Democrats supported the invasion at one point
However, the people who are party to either A or B are so stupid that no act of Congres will pacify or convince them. So really, YOU should shut the @#!* up.


so you agree, "shut the fuch up and lets finish the job?

splendid idea. :)
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: jg983 on November 24, 2005, 10:00:19 PM
This is a pointless post.

i'm trying to figure out who his target audience is.  who is he trying to convince of what, and why?

sad.   :)

murtha is a democrat aye like...

when given the opportunity to support the real deal of immediate withdrawal from iraq in a house vote...they turned tail and voted 403 – 3 against the measure...weeping loudly...they left murtha standing alone bending over...with his pants down near his ankles...

how dare republicans force donkees to commit to their rhetoric...boo hoooo...the dems are crying...

donkees bray that it is "w's" war...bullszhite...the House voted 296–133 to go for it...in their "so decreed" "bush's war"...many of whom were democrats... the senate voted 77–23 to authorize the mission in iraq...many of whom were democrats...

bush "the american cowboy" wanted to "git hussein no matter what. please, intelligent...historically minded...hell...common sense minded people? the clinton administration is who authored and passed a congressional resolution in 1998 making "regime change" the FORMAL us policy on iraq. bush only finished what Clinton started…with the support of congress...

the congress is still in full support of "getting the job done"...and getting it done right.

democrats forced to decide...and said...let's go with bush!!!

liberals are a bunch of say one thing do something else panzies!!!

the vote proves this!!


I don't know if this is intended to provoke a response from Julie alone -- you've certainly accomplished the formidable task of making your posts as unreadable and pointless as hers.

sorry you missed the point. ;)

this vote quiets those folks who do not support the troops...those who forget that the democrats wanted this war as well...those who continually criticise the war...and the "do-nothings" who just blame everything on bush.

get it?

it's like a "shut the fuch up" and lets finish the job...shall we.

Yes, I suppose it "quiets" the ridiculously small minority of Americans who:
A) Believe that "the troops" are somehow to blame for the mismanagement of the war in Iraq
B) Deny the FACT that a majority of Democrats supported the invasion at one point
However, the people who are party to either A or B are so stupid that no act of Congres will pacify or convince them. So really, YOU should shut the @#!* up.


so you agree, "shut the fuch up and lets finish the job?

splendid idea. :)

I may or may not agree, depending on what you mean by "let's finish the job." You may be interested to know that it's not so simple as whether or not you support a dictatorship in Iraq.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 24, 2005, 10:33:03 PM
still doesn't answer the question of: whom are you addressing?

this isn't a ploy to coax me into a debate with you about "Whether or not you are slow?"...is it?

Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 24, 2005, 10:40:31 PM
This is a pointless post.

i'm trying to figure out who his target audience is.  who is he trying to convince of what, and why?

sad.   :)

murtha is a democrat aye like...

when given the opportunity to support the real deal of immediate withdrawal from iraq in a house vote...they turned tail and voted 403 – 3 against the measure...weeping loudly...they left murtha standing alone bending over...with his pants down near his ankles...

how dare republicans force donkees to commit to their rhetoric...boo hoooo...the dems are crying...

donkees bray that it is "w's" war...bullszhite...the House voted 296–133 to go for it...in their "so decreed" "bush's war"...many of whom were democrats... the senate voted 77–23 to authorize the mission in iraq...many of whom were democrats...

bush "the american cowboy" wanted to "git hussein no matter what. please, intelligent...historically minded...hell...common sense minded people? the clinton administration is who authored and passed a congressional resolution in 1998 making "regime change" the FORMAL us policy on iraq. bush only finished what Clinton started…with the support of congress...

the congress is still in full support of "getting the job done"...and getting it done right.

democrats forced to decide...and said...let's go with bush!!!

liberals are a bunch of say one thing do something else panzies!!!

the vote proves this!!


I don't know if this is intended to provoke a response from Julie alone -- you've certainly accomplished the formidable task of making your posts as unreadable and pointless as hers.

sorry you missed the point. ;)

this vote quiets those folks who do not support the troops...those who forget that the democrats wanted this war as well...those who continually criticise the war...and the "do-nothings" who just blame everything on bush.

get it?

it's like a "shut the fuch up" and lets finish the job...shall we.

Yes, I suppose it "quiets" the ridiculously small minority of Americans who:
A) Believe that "the troops" are somehow to blame for the mismanagement of the war in Iraq
B) Deny the FACT that a majority of Democrats supported the invasion at one point
However, the people who are party to either A or B are so stupid that no act of Congres will pacify or convince them. So really, YOU should shut the @#!* up.


so you agree, "shut the fuch up and lets finish the job?

splendid idea. :)

I may or may not agree, depending on what you mean by "let's finish the job." You may be interested to know that it's not so simple as whether or not you support a dictatorship in Iraq.


lets finish the job...get carefully less and less military in iraq...
hussein was more of a dictator/invader/mass murderer/head of repressive regime...
his sons were going to be much more than sons of a dictator...murderers as well.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 24, 2005, 10:52:24 PM
after murtha's speech...a vote was taken...and the people have spoken...

overwhelmingly...403-3...


democrats while wobbling...keep ball in play...
elephants force the issue.

px.o.rsta

no matter how the "washed-up-post" propagandizes (props-up)...these numbers 403-3 DO NOT lie!


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/20/AR2005112000179.html

Not even Murtha called for an immediate pull-out. The more relevant polls indicate most Americans believe going to Iraq was a mistake (and a hefty percentage of them think Bush lied).  Bush still does not think it was a bad idea. Then, you consider the 95% of the rest of the planet who thinks it was a mistake (80% of Brits, for example--and they even went to war with us!). Now, who is out of touch?


oh and 4 out of 5 dentists surveyed recommend polls taken by trident sugarless gum.

blame the congress man...they are the ones who voted on going to war...that's where you should focus your anger.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: jg983 on November 24, 2005, 11:19:35 PM
This is a pointless post.

i'm trying to figure out who his target audience is.  who is he trying to convince of what, and why?

sad.   :)

murtha is a democrat aye like...

when given the opportunity to support the real deal of immediate withdrawal from iraq in a house vote...they turned tail and voted 403 – 3 against the measure...weeping loudly...they left murtha standing alone bending over...with his pants down near his ankles...

how dare republicans force donkees to commit to their rhetoric...boo hoooo...the dems are crying...

donkees bray that it is "w's" war...bullszhite...the House voted 296–133 to go for it...in their "so decreed" "bush's war"...many of whom were democrats... the senate voted 77–23 to authorize the mission in iraq...many of whom were democrats...

bush "the american cowboy" wanted to "git hussein no matter what. please, intelligent...historically minded...hell...common sense minded people? the clinton administration is who authored and passed a congressional resolution in 1998 making "regime change" the FORMAL us policy on iraq. bush only finished what Clinton started…with the support of congress...

the congress is still in full support of "getting the job done"...and getting it done right.

democrats forced to decide...and said...let's go with bush!!!

liberals are a bunch of say one thing do something else panzies!!!

the vote proves this!!


I don't know if this is intended to provoke a response from Julie alone -- you've certainly accomplished the formidable task of making your posts as unreadable and pointless as hers.

sorry you missed the point. ;)

this vote quiets those folks who do not support the troops...those who forget that the democrats wanted this war as well...those who continually criticise the war...and the "do-nothings" who just blame everything on bush.

get it?

it's like a "shut the fuch up" and lets finish the job...shall we.

Yes, I suppose it "quiets" the ridiculously small minority of Americans who:
A) Believe that "the troops" are somehow to blame for the mismanagement of the war in Iraq
B) Deny the FACT that a majority of Democrats supported the invasion at one point
However, the people who are party to either A or B are so stupid that no act of Congres will pacify or convince them. So really, YOU should shut the @#!* up.


so you agree, "shut the fuch up and lets finish the job?

splendid idea. :)

I may or may not agree, depending on what you mean by "let's finish the job." You may be interested to know that it's not so simple as whether or not you support a dictatorship in Iraq.


lets finish the job...get carefully less and less military in iraq...
hussein was more of a dictator/invader/mass murderer/head of repressive regime...
his sons were going to be much more than sons of a dictator...murderers as well.

I'm willing to wager that 95%+ of people believe we should have "carfully less and less military in Iraq." The dabate between Democrats and Republicans isn't over whether we should withdraw from Iraq; it's over the timetable that should dictate our movements out of Iraq, and the method of withdrawal. It seems, based on your posts, that you have a poor handle on what the disagreement between Democrats and Republicans really entails.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 24, 2005, 11:21:38 PM
still doesn't answer the question of: whom are you addressing?

to whom was aye addressing? still you query?

whomever answers with pith...or was too obsessesed with how or why we, the congress, the intelligence, were duped by the president into getting us into this war...and not the strategy for moving us out.

Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 24, 2005, 11:33:52 PM
This is a pointless post.

i'm trying to figure out who his target audience is.  who is he trying to convince of what, and why?

sad.   :)

murtha is a democrat aye like...

when given the opportunity to support the real deal of immediate withdrawal from iraq in a house vote...they turned tail and voted 403 – 3 against the measure...weeping loudly...they left murtha standing alone bending over...with his pants down near his ankles...

how dare republicans force donkees to commit to their rhetoric...boo hoooo...the dems are crying...

donkees bray that it is "w's" war...bullszhite...the House voted 296–133 to go for it...in their "so decreed" "bush's war"...many of whom were democrats... the senate voted 77–23 to authorize the mission in iraq...many of whom were democrats...

bush "the american cowboy" wanted to "git hussein no matter what. please, intelligent...historically minded...hell...common sense minded people? the clinton administration is who authored and passed a congressional resolution in 1998 making "regime change" the FORMAL us policy on iraq. bush only finished what Clinton started…with the support of congress...

the congress is still in full support of "getting the job done"...and getting it done right.

democrats forced to decide...and said...let's go with bush!!!

liberals are a bunch of say one thing do something else panzies!!!

the vote proves this!!


I don't know if this is intended to provoke a response from Julie alone -- you've certainly accomplished the formidable task of making your posts as unreadable and pointless as hers.

sorry you missed the point. ;)

this vote quiets those folks who do not support the troops...those who forget that the democrats wanted this war as well...those who continually criticise the war...and the "do-nothings" who just blame everything on bush.

get it?

it's like a "shut the fuch up" and lets finish the job...shall we.

Yes, I suppose it "quiets" the ridiculously small minority of Americans who:
A) Believe that "the troops" are somehow to blame for the mismanagement of the war in Iraq
B) Deny the FACT that a majority of Democrats supported the invasion at one point
However, the people who are party to either A or B are so stupid that no act of Congres will pacify or convince them. So really, YOU should shut the @#!* up.


so you agree, "shut the fuch up and lets finish the job?

splendid idea. :)

I may or may not agree, depending on what you mean by "let's finish the job." You may be interested to know that it's not so simple as whether or not you support a dictatorship in Iraq.


lets finish the job...get carefully less and less military in iraq...
hussein was more of a dictator/invader/mass murderer/head of repressive regime...
his sons were going to be much more than sons of a dictator...murderers as well.

I'm willing to wager that 95%+ of people believe we should have "carfully less and less military in Iraq." The dabate between Democrats and Republicans isn't over whether we should withdraw from Iraq; it's over the timetable that should dictate our movements out of Iraq, and the method of withdrawal. It seems, based on your posts, that you have a poor handle on what the disagreement between Democrats and Republicans really entails.

let's see umm...hmmm...hold on...lemme git some sugar kane...


okay...aye'm back.


the house voted 403-3 to reject a nonbinding resolution calling for an immediate troop withdrawal

perhaps you are mixing that up with last tuesday where the senate defeated a democratic push for bush to lay out a timetable for withdrawal.

px.o.rsta
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 24, 2005, 11:37:56 PM
whomever answers with pith...or was too obsessesed with how or why we, the congress, the intelligence, were duped by the president into getting us into this war...and not the strategy for moving us out.

do these people have names?  :)

i think you're just pining for julie's attention.  :D

if they want a name they can have a name...

aye get a chuckle when something like 403-3 pops up and liberal grouse-stepping naivates...get their feathers ruffled.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 24, 2005, 11:44:18 PM
if they want a name they can have a name...

aye get a chuckle when something like 403-3 pops up and liberal grouse-stepping naivates...get their feathers ruffled.

because of course bills shouldn't be viewed in context!  :D

grouse-stepping...?

s l o w l y shouldn't be viewed in context

grouse-lurching?
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 24, 2005, 11:49:07 PM
s l o w l y shouldn't be viewed in context

grouse-lurching?

i don't even have a clue what this means.  :D

probably because i'm slow.  :(

i'm gonna sit back and eat my popcorn while you and habeas duke it out.  have fun!  :)

::eats popcorn::

popsecret or ville?

this girl is hittin the hookah...she got her days mixed up, man.  she thinks tuesday is friday...
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 25, 2005, 12:05:53 AM
popsecret or ville?

this girl is hittin the hookah...she got her days mixed up, man.  she thinks tuesday is friday...

neither, i got it at the concessionaire.  this IS a movie theater, you realize.

i approve.

it is a stringent and gradual mind ablation for the able pre-law reader.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: jg983 on November 25, 2005, 12:51:25 AM
This is a pointless post.

i'm trying to figure out who his target audience is.  who is he trying to convince of what, and why?

sad.   :)

murtha is a democrat aye like...

when given the opportunity to support the real deal of immediate withdrawal from iraq in a house vote...they turned tail and voted 403 – 3 against the measure...weeping loudly...they left murtha standing alone bending over...with his pants down near his ankles...

how dare republicans force donkees to commit to their rhetoric...boo hoooo...the dems are crying...

donkees bray that it is "w's" war...bullszhite...the House voted 296–133 to go for it...in their "so decreed" "bush's war"...many of whom were democrats... the senate voted 77–23 to authorize the mission in iraq...many of whom were democrats...

bush "the american cowboy" wanted to "git hussein no matter what. please, intelligent...historically minded...hell...common sense minded people? the clinton administration is who authored and passed a congressional resolution in 1998 making "regime change" the FORMAL us policy on iraq. bush only finished what Clinton started…with the support of congress...

the congress is still in full support of "getting the job done"...and getting it done right.

democrats forced to decide...and said...let's go with bush!!!

liberals are a bunch of say one thing do something else panzies!!!

the vote proves this!!


I don't know if this is intended to provoke a response from Julie alone -- you've certainly accomplished the formidable task of making your posts as unreadable and pointless as hers.

sorry you missed the point. ;)

this vote quiets those folks who do not support the troops...those who forget that the democrats wanted this war as well...those who continually criticise the war...and the "do-nothings" who just blame everything on bush.

get it?

it's like a "shut the fuch up" and lets finish the job...shall we.

Yes, I suppose it "quiets" the ridiculously small minority of Americans who:
A) Believe that "the troops" are somehow to blame for the mismanagement of the war in Iraq
B) Deny the FACT that a majority of Democrats supported the invasion at one point
However, the people who are party to either A or B are so stupid that no act of Congres will pacify or convince them. So really, YOU should shut the @#!* up.


so you agree, "shut the fuch up and lets finish the job?

splendid idea. :)

I may or may not agree, depending on what you mean by "let's finish the job." You may be interested to know that it's not so simple as whether or not you support a dictatorship in Iraq.


lets finish the job...get carefully less and less military in iraq...
hussein was more of a dictator/invader/mass murderer/head of repressive regime...
his sons were going to be much more than sons of a dictator...murderers as well.

I'm willing to wager that 95%+ of people believe we should have "carfully less and less military in Iraq." The dabate between Democrats and Republicans isn't over whether we should withdraw from Iraq; it's over the timetable that should dictate our movements out of Iraq, and the method of withdrawal. It seems, based on your posts, that you have a poor handle on what the disagreement between Democrats and Republicans really entails.

let's see umm...hmmm...hold on...lemme git some sugar kane...


okay...aye'm back.


the house voted 403-3 to reject a nonbinding resolution calling for an immediate troop withdrawal

perhaps you are mixing that up with last tuesday where the senate defeated a democratic push for bush to lay out a timetable for withdrawal.

px.o.rsta

"Immediate withdrawal" would qualify as a timetable for withdrawal. HTH.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: Julie Fern on November 25, 2005, 06:02:54 AM
immediate withdrawal, finish job.  starting to sound little sexy around here.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: Julie Fern on November 25, 2005, 07:46:41 AM
ok, you game. julie shoot you.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: Julie Fern on November 25, 2005, 10:55:14 AM
urp.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 27, 2005, 11:46:02 PM
This is a pointless post.

i'm trying to figure out who his target audience is.  who is he trying to convince of what, and why?

sad.   :)

murtha is a democrat aye like...

when given the opportunity to support the real deal of immediate withdrawal from iraq in a house vote...they turned tail and voted 403 – 3 against the measure...weeping loudly...they left murtha standing alone bending over...with his pants down near his ankles...

how dare republicans force donkees to commit to their rhetoric...boo hoooo...the dems are crying...

donkees bray that it is "w's" war...bullszhite...the House voted 296–133 to go for it...in their "so decreed" "bush's war"...many of whom were democrats... the senate voted 77–23 to authorize the mission in iraq...many of whom were democrats...

bush "the american cowboy" wanted to "git hussein no matter what. please, intelligent...historically minded...hell...common sense minded people? the clinton administration is who authored and passed a congressional resolution in 1998 making "regime change" the FORMAL us policy on iraq. bush only finished what Clinton started…with the support of congress...

the congress is still in full support of "getting the job done"...and getting it done right.

democrats forced to decide...and said...let's go with bush!!!

liberals are a bunch of say one thing do something else panzies!!!

the vote proves this!!


I don't know if this is intended to provoke a response from Julie alone -- you've certainly accomplished the formidable task of making your posts as unreadable and pointless as hers.

sorry you missed the point. ;)

this vote quiets those folks who do not support the troops...those who forget that the democrats wanted this war as well...those who continually criticise the war...and the "do-nothings" who just blame everything on bush.

get it?

it's like a "shut the fuch up" and lets finish the job...shall we.

Yes, I suppose it "quiets" the ridiculously small minority of Americans who:
A) Believe that "the troops" are somehow to blame for the mismanagement of the war in Iraq
B) Deny the FACT that a majority of Democrats supported the invasion at one point
However, the people who are party to either A or B are so stupid that no act of Congres will pacify or convince them. So really, YOU should shut the @#!* up.


so you agree, "shut the fuch up and lets finish the job?

splendid idea. :)

I may or may not agree, depending on what you mean by "let's finish the job." You may be interested to know that it's not so simple as whether or not you support a dictatorship in Iraq.


lets finish the job...get carefully less and less military in iraq...
hussein was more of a dictator/invader/mass murderer/head of repressive regime...
his sons were going to be much more than sons of a dictator...murderers as well.

I'm willing to wager that 95%+ of people believe we should have "carfully less and less military in Iraq." The dabate between Democrats and Republicans isn't over whether we should withdraw from Iraq; it's over the timetable that should dictate our movements out of Iraq, and the method of withdrawal. It seems, based on your posts, that you have a poor handle on what the disagreement between Democrats and Republicans really entails.

let's see umm...hmmm...hold on...lemme git some sugar kane...


okay...aye'm back.


the house voted 403-3 to reject a nonbinding resolution calling for an immediate troop withdrawal

perhaps you are mixing that up with last tuesday where the senate defeated a democratic push for bush to lay out a timetable for withdrawal.

px.o.rsta

"Immediate withdrawal" would qualify as a timetable for withdrawal. HTH.

 :D :D :D...really...you are mixing the two days together...

immediate withdrawl is not a timetable for anything...sorry...you are wrong.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: Julie Fern on November 28, 2005, 05:56:22 AM
obviously, no one advocate "immediate" withdrawal.  however, clearly writing on proverbial wall for withdrawal soon after bush 0 leave office, if not before.

first, though, 0 going to drag his party down with him because, much like pat robertson, he believe he have hotline to god.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: Julie Fern on November 28, 2005, 11:51:52 AM
kurds key to everything.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: _BP_ on November 28, 2005, 12:22:00 PM
Another right-winger bites the dust.  How many of these cats are either under investigation, under indictment, or convicted of something (mostly dealing with fraud, ethics violations, money laundering)?  Daymnnnnnn

"Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleaded guilty Monday to conspiracy and tax charges, admitting taking $2.4 million in bribes"

Julie Fern, you should have been all over this, don't tell me you're slowing down....well I have to admit, they are falling faster than the average person can keep up..LOL
 
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: Julie Fern on November 28, 2005, 02:08:07 PM
yes, there just too many.  julie could be accused of post-whoring if she posted on no other subject.

republicans clearly party of values.  in case of cunningham, that value something like $2.4 million.

wait until stuff with abrahamof really come out.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: 98765432 on November 28, 2005, 02:14:05 PM
the House voted 296–133 to go for it... the senate voted 77–23 to authorize the mission in iraq...many of whom were democrats...

Where do I find the vote count?  What was the Republican count?  And the Dems?  And Independents?
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: jg983 on November 28, 2005, 06:30:14 PM
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42825
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: jg983 on November 28, 2005, 07:26:07 PM
i find it both scary and amusing that the onion is growing steadily more accurate. 

Why do you torture me with your fake LSN link? I want to know what all the fuss is about.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 30, 2005, 12:46:36 PM

"Immediate withdrawal" would qualify as a timetable for withdrawal. HTH.

now that you pointed out that he was wrong, he's going to redefine the word "timetable" to mean something it does not, just like he did in the other thread with the word "federalism."

you make me laugh..."immediate withdrawl" is NOT a timetable for anything...

stop criticising the war...accept it...hussein is out...dems and reps wanted the war...now...lets support the "fledgling government"...lets support the troops...lets support the december 15th elections...shut the naysayers up and do the job right...

this is the major problem with the democratic party...criticise...backtrack ...rehash...so unorganized

until taken to task.

403-3...that is all aye need to write...it cut to the extreme chase...


and all liberals say is...well shucks...golly gee "nobody advocates an immediate pull-out"...EXACTLY...aye say shut up and lets get this thing done!

without bunk criticism...without backtracking.


ps.

spiff:
give the "federalism" thing up...you are wrong...it is on the other thread...
federalism is at the heart for "the people's rights"... not "the states rights".
read some madison...he broadly explains it all...hth :)
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: 98765432 on November 30, 2005, 12:51:21 PM
dems and reps wanted the war

By what vote count?  Split it up for me by party, or give me a link.  I'm curious.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: jg983 on November 30, 2005, 01:02:18 PM

"Immediate withdrawal" would qualify as a timetable for withdrawal. HTH.

now that you pointed out that he was wrong, he's going to redefine the word "timetable" to mean something it does not, just like he did in the other thread with the word "federalism."

you make me laugh..."immediate withdrawl" is NOT a timetable for anything...

stop criticising the war...accept it...hussein is out...dems and reps wanted the war...now...lets support the "fledgling government"...lets support the troops...lets support the december 15th elections...shut the naysayers up and do the job right...

this is the major problem with the democratic party...criticise...backtrack ...rehash...so unorganized

until taken to task.

403-3...that is all aye need to write...it cut to the extreme chase...


and all liberals say is...well shucks...golly gee "nobody advocates an immediate pull-out"...EXACTLY...aye say shut up and lets get this thing done!

without bunk criticism...without backtracking.


ps.

spiff:
give the "federalism" thing up...you are wrong...it is on the other thread...
federalism is at the heart for "the people's rights"... not "the states rights".
read some madison...he broadly explains it all...hth :)

So stating the obvious somehow pwns liberals? Kudos.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: Julie Fern on November 30, 2005, 01:29:52 PM

you make me laugh..."immediate withdrawl" is NOT a timetable for anything...


repeating yourself doesn't make this true.


spiff:
give the "federalism" thing up...you are wrong...it is on the other thread...


you mean that misapplication of federalist 51?  i probably should give up though.  your posts don't have an ounce of reasoning so why waste time?

bluecoward member of flat earth society.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: 98765432 on November 30, 2005, 01:59:34 PM
dems and reps wanted the war

By what vote count?  Split it up for me by party, or give me a link.  I'm curious.

you won't find a vote count for who "wanted the war" because the resolution was an authorization to use force when appropriate.  people will differ as to what they consider appropriate.

Yeah, but earlier he used the overall vote count to justify his claim that both Republicans and Democrats supported going to war.  But what I'd like to know is what the numbers were for each party.  I'm guessing that although many Dems voted for the war, the percentage of Republicans who supported the war is higher (probably much higher) than the percentage of Democrats who supported it.  This is probably why I've asked twice now and he hasn't responded.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 30, 2005, 09:11:41 PM

you make me laugh..."immediate withdrawl" is NOT a timetable for anything...


repeating yourself doesn't make this true.


spiff:
give the "federalism" thing up...you are wrong...it is on the other thread...


you mean that misapplication of federalist 51?  i probably should give up though.  your posts don't have an ounce of reasoning so why waste time?

bluecoward member of flat earth society.


Dana Priest: The President and his national security advisers have tried to make the argument that it is, in fact, in the US interest to be involved in Kosovo because the stability of Europe is central to overall NATO alliance and US stability. The Kosovo crisis could very well spill over to Montenegro, Albania and could effect the fragile peace in Bosnia, where thousands of US troops are still deployed. US official have insisted, however, that because it is in Europe, other NATO nations should bear the brunt of the military burden and they will if a peace implementation force is ever deployed. Brits, and French will have more troops there than we do and right now British planes are participating in air strikes.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fairfax, VA: How would you explain the sudden turnabout of the congress in first denouncing the proposed US action in Kosovo, and then approving it with no explaination as to what had changed in the course of two days?

Dana Priest: Traditionally Congress has stood behind the president, any president, once military action begins. In doing this, they are standing squarely behind the military personnel who are putting their lives on the line and who may be looking to the U.S. for support in difficult moments. This is not to say that members of Congress have changed their minds about the wisedom of the policy. I don't believe they have.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bethesda, maryland: Does Clinton have an exit strategy?
What happens if air strikes are ineffective?

Dana Priest: This is the big missing piece. Notice, however, that officials are now saying the goal is not to force Milosevic to the bargaining table (which military action of course cannot do) but to "degrade" his military's ability to harm the Kosovars--same formulation as you see in Iraq. Pentagon officials are careful to point out that military actions cannot achieve political ends, it can only destroy things and people. But the administration is clearly using the strikes to soften him up, to make him change is mind. If he does not, the real question is when would the strike ends. We have no clear sense of this and many of the Pentagon officials I have spoken to this week don't have a good answer for that either. We really have not seen a situation like this before.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

washington, dc: Is there a timeline as to when ground forces will be deployed?

Dana Priest: Ground forces are to be deployed only after Milosevic agrees to a peace accord, meaning that they will no go in fighting, but only to implement a peace. This could happened in a matter of weeks after the bombing, perhaps sooner, if Milosevic were to quickly sign on the dotted line.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Somewhere, USA: Sandy Berger is a trade lawyer, not a geo-political military strategist. Is there any counter-balancing professional voice in the WH or DoD who can point out the weaknesses in the current policy to the President? it appears that the Administration has insulated itself from all but Albright's highly theoretical point of view. The bombing may well not change the serb's mind. Is Clinton going to try to force the US to send ground forces, even without a treaty? Please say he isn't that crazy.

Dana Priest: At moments like this, I believe Clinton also listens careful to his military chiefs. And I believe he will be prohibited from sending in ground troops both by their counsel--they are very much opposed--and by members of Congress who are also opposed to sending ground troops into such a quagmire.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New York City, NY: The American public clearly does not understand the urgency of the situtation in Kosovo. The public's opinion is, police in the Middle East to keep oil prices down, but let eryone else handle their own problems when it comes to human lives. Do you think the Clinton Administration has clearly demonstrated the need for military intervention or does the American public simply not care.

Dana Priest: As a reporter who has covered the president on other issues, I have been surprised at the fact that they have done so little preparation and explanation. It has really only come about in the last few days. Perhaps that is an indication of how unsure they have been about the direction this would take.


...


once ya get past this...let me know...

Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 30, 2005, 09:48:32 PM
dems and reps wanted the war

By what vote count?  Split it up for me by party, or give me a link.  I'm curious.

sorry, man aye've been busy...

here it is...


House Roll Call Vote 455
Passed by a vote of 296-133:
Republicans 215-6
Democrats 81-126
Independents 0-1

On Friday October 11 the Senate Roll Call Vote No. 237 Leg. on H.J.Res. 114 passed with a vote of 77-23.

Republicans 47-2
Democrats 30–20
Independents 0-1



here is a good one...

roll call vote #61
s. res. 95

vote:99-0





108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. RES. 95
Commending the President and the Armed Forces of the United States of America.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 20, 2003
Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. WARNER, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. REID, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Allard, Mr. Allen, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Bond, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Burns, Mr. Campbell, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Carper, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Chambliss, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Coleman, Ms. Collins, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Craig, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Dayton, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Enzi, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mrs. Feinstein Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Graham of Florida, Mr. Graham of South Carolina, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Hollings, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kyl, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Lott, Mr. Lugar, Mr. McCain, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Miller, Ms. Murkowski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Reed, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Smith, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Specter, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Talent, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Voinovich, and Mr. Wyden) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


RESOLUTION
Commending the President and the Armed Forces of the United States of America.

Whereas Saddam Hussein has failed to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 949, 1051, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, 1205, 1284, and 1441;

Whereas the military action now underway against Iraq is lawful and fully authorized by the Congress in Sec. 3(a) of Public Law 107-243, which passed the Senate on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 77-23, and which passed the House of Representatives on that same date by a vote of 296-133;

Whereas more than 225,000 men and women of the United States Armed Forces are now involved in conflict against Iraq;

Whereas over 200,000 members of the Reserves and National Guard have been called to active duty for the conflict against Iraq and other purposes; and

Whereas the Senate and the American people have the greatest pride in the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, and the civilian personnel supporting them, and strongly support them in their efforts: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President, as Commander in Chief, in the conflict against Iraq;

(2) commends, and expresses the gratitude of the Nation to all members of the United States Armed Forces (whether on active duty, in the National Guard, or in the Reserves) and the civilian employees who support their efforts, as well as the men and women of civilian national security agencies who are participating in the military operations in the Persian Gulf region, for their professional excellence, dedicated patriotism and exemplary bravery;

(3) commends and expresses the gratitude of the Nation to the family members of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and civilians serving in operations against Iraq who have borne the burden of sacrifice and separation from their loves ones;

(4) expresses its deep condolences to the families of brave Americans who have lost their lives in this noble undertaking, over many years, against Iraq;

(5) joins all Americans in remembering those who lost their lives during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm in 1991, those still missing from that conflict, including Captain Scott Speicher, USN, and the thousands of Americans who have lost their lives in terrorist attacks over the years, and in the Global War on Terrorism; and

(6) expresses sincere gratitude to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his government for their courageous and steadfast support, as well as gratitude to other allied nations for their military support, logistical support, and other assistance in the campaign against Saddam Hussein's regime.

and...

>>>in the house

Commending The President and The Armed Forces: By a Yea and Nay vote of 392 yeas to 11 nays, (22 members voting "Present"), Roll No. 83, the House passed H.Con.Res. 104, expressing the support and appreciation of the Nation for the President and the members of the Armed forces who are participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Commending the President and the Armed Forces of the United States of America. (Agreed to by Senate)

SRES 95 ATS
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 30, 2005, 09:54:11 PM

"Immediate withdrawal" would qualify as a timetable for withdrawal. HTH.

now that you pointed out that he was wrong, he's going to redefine the word "timetable" to mean something it does not, just like he did in the other thread with the word "federalism."

you make me laugh..."immediate withdrawl" is NOT a timetable for anything...

stop criticising the war...accept it...hussein is out...dems and reps wanted the war...now...lets support the "fledgling government"...lets support the troops...lets support the december 15th elections...shut the naysayers up and do the job right...

this is the major problem with the democratic party...criticise...backtrack ...rehash...so unorganized

until taken to task.

403-3...that is all aye need to write...it cut to the extreme chase...


and all liberals say is...well shucks...golly gee "nobody advocates an immediate pull-out"...EXACTLY...aye say shut up and lets get this thing done!

without bunk criticism...without backtracking.


ps.

spiff:
give the "federalism" thing up...you are wrong...it is on the other thread...
federalism is at the heart for "the people's rights"... not "the states rights".
read some madison...he broadly explains it all...hth :)

So stating the obvious somehow pwns liberals? Kudos.

no aye think the criticising, backtracking and rehashing "l"owns liberals.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 30, 2005, 10:27:33 PM
dems and reps wanted the war

By what vote count?  Split it up for me by party, or give me a link.  I'm curious.

you won't find a vote count for who "wanted the war" because the resolution was an authorization to use force when appropriate.  people will differ as to what they consider appropriate.


PL 107-243/HJ Res 114.

the resolution authorizes president bush to use us military as he deems necessary and appropriate to defend us national security against iraq and enforce u.n. security council resolutions regarding iraq.

hey... "wanted" may have been a little demonstrative...however...

appropriate can mean "to set apart for a specific use".
but necessary is in there as well...and necessity is the mother of invention.

necessary: that which is essential...urgent need.

it was voted on and the yea's obviously "wanted" something... ;)

oh and btw...you are backtracking...rehashing...an d boo-hoo...stop the whining...
are you gonna stop the whining now or do you need a time-table... :D :D :D
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: 98765432 on December 01, 2005, 08:18:20 AM

sorry, man aye've been busy...

here it is...

Sorry for laying it on like that, but I knew if I called you out I'd get a response.  Thanks.

House Roll Call Vote 455
Passed by a vote of 296-133:
Republicans 215-6
Democrats 81-126
Independents 0-1

On Friday October 11 the Senate Roll Call Vote No. 237 Leg. on H.J.Res. 114 passed with a vote of 77-23.

Republicans 47-2
Democrats 30–20
Independents 0-1

I haven't checked your source, because I assume your honesty, but assuming these two votes are on the same subject, authorizing Bush to use whatever military force he feels necessary in Iraq, then we've got a total Congressional vote count of 529, with the Republicans voting for the war with a rate of 97%, and the Democrats voting against the war with by a 57% to 43% margin.  So if you are saying that some Democrats (a significant minority of Democrats) voted for the war, then you've got the evidence to back that up.  But that very evidence very clearly shows whose war this is.  The Democrats were divided on the war (with a much clearer majority opposed to the war (57%) than Bush claimed represented a "mandate" for his presidency (51%)), while the Republicans supported going to war with almost unanimity. 

Whose war is this?
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on December 01, 2005, 10:25:22 AM

sorry, man aye've been busy...

here it is...

Sorry for laying it on like that, but I knew if I called you out I'd get a response.  Thanks.

House Roll Call Vote 455
Passed by a vote of 296-133:
Republicans 215-6
Democrats 81-126
Independents 0-1

On Friday October 11 the Senate Roll Call Vote No. 237 Leg. on H.J.Res. 114 passed with a vote of 77-23.

Republicans 47-2
Democrats 30–20
Independents 0-1

I haven't checked your source, because I assume your honesty, but assuming these two votes are on the same subject, authorizing Bush to use whatever military force he feels necessary in Iraq, then we've got a total Congressional vote count of 529, with the Republicans voting for the war with a rate of 97%, and the Democrats voting against the war with by a 57% to 43% margin.  So if you are saying that some Democrats (a significant minority of Democrats) voted for the war, then you've got the evidence to back that up.  But that very evidence very clearly shows whose war this is.  The Democrats were divided on the war (with a much clearer majority opposed to the war (57%) than Bush claimed represented a "mandate" for his presidency (51%)), while the Republicans supported going to war with almost unanimity. 

Whose war is this?

111 donkees were braying for hussein to be removed...
262 elephants were trumpeting for hussein to be removed...

we have to listen to the 111 donkees who wanted hussein out...you cannot disallow their support.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: 98765432 on December 01, 2005, 11:18:44 AM
I'm not letting those 111 Democrats off the hook entirely, but the point is that the Republicans got their way, we went to war, but if the Democrats had their way, we wouldn't have gone to war, since most voted against it.

Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: _BP_ on December 01, 2005, 11:47:05 AM
I'm not letting those 111 Democrats off the hook entirely, but the point is that the Republicans got their way, we went to war, but if the Democrats had their way, we wouldn't have gone to war, since most voted against it.

Yup...it couldn't be clearer.
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on December 01, 2005, 08:11:43 PM
I'm not letting those 111 Democrats off the hook entirely, but the point is that the Republicans got their way, we went to war, but if the Democrats had their way, we wouldn't have gone to war, since most voted against it.



you can't overlook resolution 95 for the senate
and resolution 104 for the house...

you scanned over the 99-0 senate vote.

"Commending the President and the Armed Forces of the United States of America"

all voting democrats show a substantial support for the war...

and the 392-11 house vote.

all voting democrats show a substantial support for the war...

you can't let them off the hook so soon.




there is no getting around it...the war is republicans and 111 democrats war...that is a considerable amount...

if you look at the senate 30 democrats were in support of the war and 20 dems were not...those 30 dems supported the war...

Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: ImVinny! on December 07, 2005, 09:29:55 PM
after murtha's speech...a vote was taken...and the people have spoken...

overwhelmingly...403-3...


democrats while wobbling...keep ball in play...
elephants force the issue.

px.o.rsta

no matter how the "washed-up-post" propagandizes (props-up)...these numbers 403-3 DO NOT lie!


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/20/AR2005112000179.html

Not even Murtha called for an immediate pull-out. The more relevant polls indicate most Americans believe going to Iraq was a mistake (and a hefty percentage of them think Bush lied).  Bush still does not think it was a bad idea. Then, you consider the 95% of the rest of the planet who thinks it was a mistake (80% of Brits, for example--and they even went to war with us!). Now, who is out of touch?


What are these reliable polls you are referring to, would it some newspaper article?
Title: Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
Post by: ImVinny! on December 07, 2005, 09:43:24 PM
dems and reps wanted the war

By what vote count?  Split it up for me by party, or give me a link.  I'm curious.

You can find a vote count and see what each member voted for, against, or abstain on the thomas legislative website. http://thomas.loc.gov/
You can look up anything there to find vote tallies and such, it is a great resource to have. HTH