Any of you getting that eerie feeling as well?

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: her209
Is it just me or is Deudalus labeling/categorizing everyone who opposes his opinion an extremist?

Yup. His very first post screamed "freeper."

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
I think it must eat you up that the US has normal relations with Vietnam today (since 1994) and are a trade partner with us...

It does for me. link

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: her209
Is it just me or is Deudalus labeling/categorizing everyone who opposes his opinion an extremist?

Yup. His very first post screamed "freeper."

Ahh, if you read back actually it was indeed Moonbeam who came after me. I simply replied and hurt his feelings apparently

Then you respond by accusing me of labeling people, then you label me a freeper.

The hilarity of you guys.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: her209
Is it just me or is Deudalus labeling/categorizing everyone who opposes his opinion an extremist?

Yup. His very first post screamed "freeper."

Ahh, if you read back actually it was indeed Moonbeam who came after me. I simply replied and hurt his feelings apparently

Then you respond by accusing me of labeling people, then you label me a freeper.

The hilarity of you guys.

this was worth bumping this thread after 10 days off the front page?

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: her209
Is it just me or is Deudalus labeling/categorizing everyone who opposes his opinion an extremist?

Yup. His very first post screamed "freeper."

Ahh, if you read back actually it was indeed Moonbeam who came after me. I simply replied and hurt his feelings apparently

Then you respond by accusing me of labeling people, then you label me a freeper.

The hilarity of you guys.

this was worth bumping this thread after 10 days off the front page?

I've been gone out of town for awhile.

Anything else ya need to know?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: her209
Is it just me or is Deudalus labeling/categorizing everyone who opposes his opinion an extremist?

Yup. His very first post screamed "freeper."

Ahh, if you read back actually it was indeed Moonbeam who came after me. I simply replied and hurt his feelings apparently

Then you respond by accusing me of labeling people, then you label me a freeper.

The hilarity of you guys.

What, it's funny you hurt my feelings?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
The U.S. is the one supporting "crackpot middle eastern" dictators. Saudi Arabia anyone?
Screwing the pooch on Iraq was more than Bush "overstepping his bounds a little". It was a mistake of gigantic proportions we will be paying for over the next several generations.
There was already plenty to make people "choose sides" The Israeli/Palestinian conflict ring any bells?

Those are some great talking points and I have a funny feeling you fall into that category of "extremist wackos" that I talked about in sentence numero uno.

What I was hoping for is for someone to actually approach the question rather than cut and paste from the Limbaugh Letter or the Huffington Post.

Sadly, you arent quite sharp enough to pick up on that.

But you regurgitate with the best of them. Ill give ya that much.

Why? What he said was true.. we support dictators in the ME. We continue to meddle in the ME. Now we are occupying 2 countries in the ME. We refuse to invest heavily in alternative fuels because the government is too closely tied to oil companies. This is why the ME hates us. We still have all of these problems and continue to create more.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: jpeyton

I agree and disagree. Iraq wasn't necessary, but now that we are there it is definitely the focal point of the war on terror both for our cause and theirs.

While it didn't have to be this way, that I will not dispute, any honest person will realize that regardless of what it should be you have to admit what is, and because of our invasion and occupation of it it is the central front in the war on terror.

Someone else tackle this one. I'm tired of wasting my time chatting with AT P&N's version of Tony Snow.

If Iraq hasn't assumed that role by default, where is the center of the GWOT? Is there one at all?

No, there could never be a war on an inanimate object that has no possible way of being stopped.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: piasabird
You guys need to listen to some of the speeches of the Left from 2002 Nancy Pelosi said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction i.e. chemical and biological weapons, as well as the fact that they were building their nuclear program and we needed to do something about it i.e. go to war. Many of these Democrats were all on the War band wagon and foaming at the mouth about how we needed to fight these people in 2002. So either those people who now are against the war are all a bunch of liars, or they hate America.

Take your pick!

Nancy Pelosi voted to go to war. She is the problem. Now she is trying to Buy Votes. Just more politics. She is just as guilty as Bush. The thing is she is not taking responsiblity for her actions and Bush is. Pelosi is a big fake.

The "they wanted it too!" defense! Beautiful! I guess that justifies it then!

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

So show us where she says we should stay and fight? I won't hold my breath waiting for the link.

Uhh, the Democrats are in power now.

If they wanted to put their foot down they could stop the war immediately. Lest you forget (though probably you never knew) Congress has the power of the purse.

If they want the war to end they cut funding and thats it. So once again, if they really wanted the war to end they could end it at any time.

A bare majority and a president with veto power means they could stop the war immediately?

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

So show us where she says we should stay and fight? I won't hold my breath waiting for the link.

Uhh, the Democrats are in power now.

If they wanted to put their foot down they could stop the war immediately. Lest you forget (though probably you never knew) Congress has the power of the purse.

If they want the war to end they cut funding and thats it. So once again, if they really wanted the war to end they could end it at any time.

A bare majority and a president with veto power means they could stop the war immediately?

Not immediately no, but they could stop the war if they chose to do so. Please do a little research into the powers of government and the power of the purse.

The president has to get a spending bill through Congress to fund the war, otherwise the war ends.

The reason I say they aren't really interested in stopping the war is because they passed a non-binding request to stop the war at X date but still gave the funds which will keep the war going for an indeterminate amount of time.

All this really is is posturing so that they can say he is breaking the resolution they passed to leave Iraq by such and such a date and cause a political firestorm. He will have all the funds he needs to continue the war past that date if he chooses to do so.

If they truly want us out by March, they could have only given enough funds to fight the war until March, but they didn't do that did they?

Basically they are appeasing the left by saying one thing while their actions are doing something else.

 

[Deudalus]

Note the wording here:

Before Bush can veto the bill, Democrats must produce a final version -- a potentially tricky exercise, given the wide-ranging views within the party. Antiwar Democrats in the House, who want troops withdrawn as soon as possible, are already balking at the weaker Senate language, which sets a goal rather than a firm pullout deadline of Aug. 31, 2008, as the House version does. Some Senate Democrats said they will resist the House's hard deadline.

Its just posturing.

Its a very, very tough issue and there are alot of Republicans in battleground states that could lose their seat for their votes on this bill. But there are alot of Democrats facing that same problem.