Troops Want to Stay In Iraq

[red states rule]

I have not lied about what they said.... you have.... but I guess it really isn't lying on your part, just a grade school level of understanding about the language.

Once again:

do you think that terrorize and terrorist are synonyms? yes or no?

be a man... just step up and answer the question.

or perhaps you are a lying old fool

 

[CTRLALTDEL]

LOL!!!!! Talk about CORNERED CATS.

 

[red states rule]

LOL!!!!! Talk about CORNERED CATS.

Na, libs are more like cornered rats

 

[maineman]

or perhaps you are a lying old fool

I am neither a liar, nor all that old...and I would match my intellect, my education, and my experience up with yours any day of the week. YOU are the one incapable of writing anything on your own of any substance. YOU are the one incapable of answering simple yes or no questions.

Would you like to try one more time?

Please tell me if you think that terrorist and terrorize are synonymous....yes or no?

(and I realize, after just typing that, that you might not know what "synonymous" means.) If so, I would suggest you find out here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/

you might also check the two words in question while you are there.

 

[Shattered]

Lmao!!!

 

[Gunny]

or perhaps you are a lying old fool

This is a PERFECT example of what I have been talking about. You haven't done a damned thing but post someone else's opinion, the try and defend it with accusations and deflections. You couldn't even answer a simple question. I had to answer it for you.

I may not agree with MM's political ideology, but he's laying the smacketh down on YOU something fierce because you are too intellectually lazy to think for yourself and post a logical, fact-based argument.

 

[maineman]

This is a PERFECT example of what I have been talking about. You haven't done a damned thing but post someone else's opinion, the try and defend it with accusations and deflections. You couldn't even answer a simple question. I had to answer it for you.

I may not agree with MM's political ideology, but he's laying the smacketh down on YOU something fierce because you are too intellectually lazy to think for yourself and post a logical, fact-based argument.

gunny...we're a lot closer philosophically than either of us would probably like to admit!

but thank you for the props...

back atcha

 

[Bullypulpit]

Because he cannot debate the issues and counter the truth

Libs do not care about facts and truth - even when it comes from the troops they claim to support

Oh puleez. We've both spanked your ass and sent you to bed without supper so often that it's gone from being funny to just sad.

Just once, show a little initiative and really think for yourself. You might actually learn something. Unless, you find bliss in ignorance.

 

[maineman]

Oh puleez. We've both spanked your ass and sent you to bed without supper so often that it's gone from being funny to just sad.

Just once, show a little initiative and really think for yourself. You might actually learn something. Unless, you find bliss in ignorance.

even conservatives have begun to distance themselves from this moron.

 

[T-Bor]

Just like YOU will ignore the letter from a man in IRAQ who says he wants to come home and doesnt understand why we are there.. And you know there are plenty of them.

This proves my point MM is scared of a debate - much like his fellow peace niks.

He ignores the letter from a man fighing in Iraq who expresses his deisre to finish the job

Remember, MM also supports the elected Dems who have insulted and smeared these same troops

 

[T-Bor]

My oh my, was just reading through this post watching Red States get Owned by MaineMan. You are so right MaineMan, all he does is post articles with no thought of his own. Here is something else try to find one post of his without the word Lib in it. That will be hard to do. All he does is Bash libs for this and that and never is objective towards his own party. Bush could get drunk one night and drive his car right through the White House front door and this guy would defend him and call the trial a witch hunt.

 

[red states rule]

This is a PERFECT example of what I have been talking about. You haven't done a damned thing but post someone else's opinion, the try and defend it with accusations and deflections. You couldn't even answer a simple question. I had to answer it for you.

I may not agree with MM's political ideology, but he's laying the smacketh down on YOU something fierce because you are too intellectually lazy to think for yourself and post a logical, fact-based argument.

were you two seperated at birth?

All he has done is stand shoulder to shoulder with the Dems who have attacked the troops

I call him on it and now you circle the wagons around him

Take a deep breath and try some decaf before posting again

 

[red states rule]

Oh puleez. We've both spanked your ass and sent you to bed without supper so often that it's gone from being funny to just sad.

Just once, show a little initiative and really think for yourself. You might actually learn something. Unless, you find bliss in ignorance.

Since when? All he has done is defend the lies and attacks from the kook left - which you are a proud member of

 

[red states rule]

So much for libs supporting freedopm of speech and freedom of the press. Now libs are attacking one of the most liberal newspaper in the US for haveing the gall to say something bad about how Dems are running the government


Democrat Congressman Accuses Washington Post of Helping Drive Nation to War
Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 24, 2007 - 20:37.
As NewsBusters reported, the Washington Post published an editorial Friday that was highly critical of the bribery tactics employed by House Democrats to get their pork-laden Iraq withdrawal bill passed.

As surprising as this event was, even more shocking was a Democrat Congressman so angered by this paper disagreeing with his Party that he said “[the Post] helped drive the drumbeat that drove almost two-thirds of the people in this chamber to vote for [the Iraq war]."

Displaying such unbridled disgust was Rep. David Obey (D-Wisconsin) who had rather harsh words for the Post on the House floor Friday (video available here):

Let me submit to you the problem we have today is not that we didn't listen enough to people like The Washington Post. It's that we listened too much. They endorsed going to war in the first place. They helped drive the drumbeat that drove almost two-thirds of the people in this chamber to vote for that misbegotten, stupid, ill-advised war that has destroyed our influence over a third of the world.

Dontcha just love it? Do Democrats have any responsibility for the decisions they make in Congress? After all, when it comes to this vote, what we’ve been hearing for years is that it was all the Bush administration’s fault. Now, it’s also the media’s fault?

Are these children that have been elected to serve the nation, or adults that are supposed to take responsibility for their actions and their decisions without pointing at others while saying, "He made me do it?"

Regardless of the answer, Obey wasn’t finished:

So I make no apology if the moral sensibilities of some people on this floor, or the editorial writers of The Washington Post, are offended because they don't like the specific language contained in our benchmarks or in our timelines. What matters in the end is not what the specific language is. What matters is whether or not we produce a product today that puts pressure on this Administration and sends a message to Iraq, to the Iraqi politicians that we're going to end the permanent long-term dead end babysitting service. That's what we're trying to do. And if The Washington Post is offended about the way we do it, that's just too bad.

Hmmm. But isn’t that a bit of a double standard, Congressman? After all, for quite some time, your Party and its representatives have been telling the American people that the President manipulated intelligence reports to mislead legislators and the public. In fact, you’ve all made a big deal about “specific language,” even so far as criticizing sixteen words in a State of the Union address, correct?

As such, isn’t it somewhat hypocritical to be taking such a Machiavellian position whereby the specific language of this bill, and its atrocious bribery tactics, are irrelevant if they accomplish the goal your after?

Congressman, heal thyself.

*****Update: The Washington Post wasn't as gung ho about the Iraq war as Obey claimed on Friday. In fact, one of the strongest antiwar mainstream media voices in March 2003 was the Post's Walter Pincus. Take a look at his March 16, 2003, article entitled "U.S. Lacks Specifics on Banned Arms," as well as his March 18, 2003, article entitled "Bush Clings to Dubious Allegations About Iraq" for example.

It appears that Obey isn't familiar with Pincus' work, although facts don't seem very important to many folks who are trying to make a dubious point.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11624

 

[maineman]

imagine that.... another morning, another newsbusters cut and paste.

what a fucking loser!

 

[red states rule]

imagine that.... another morning, another newsbusters cut and paste.

what a fucking loser!

Yes, libs are fucking losers - and surreneder monkies

Libs hate newsbusters - but can never find any errors in their reporting

 

[maineman]

you prove my point.

 

[red states rule]

you prove my point.

What,how libs cannot find anything wrong in their articles?

Libs are so defensive about having any facts pointed out to them. Must be part of being a liberal

Much like a vampire cannot stand the rays of the sun - libs cannot stand the rays of truth beings shined on them

 

[maineman]

What,how libs cannot find anything wrong in their articles?

Libs are so defensive about having any facts pointed out to them. Must be part of being a liberal

Much like a vampire cannot stand the rays of the sun - libs cannot stand the rays of truth beings shined on them

I don't even read your articles. If you wrote something on your own of any substance other than your repetitive one liners, I would read them. As I said, if I wanted to come to the internet to read newsbusters articles, I would go there. I come here to read the thoughts of others..... I would LOVE to read your thoughts... but you are incapable of producing any.... you rely on the lengthy editorials of others...and like I said, I know where to go if that is what I want to read.

 

[red states rule]

I don't even read your articles. If you wrote something on your own of any substance other than your repetitive one liners, I would read them. As I said, if I wanted to come to the internet to read newsbusters articles, I would go there. I come here to read the thoughts of others..... I would LOVE to read your thoughts... but you are incapable of producing any.... you rely on the lengthy editorials of others...and like I said, I know where to go if that is what I want to read.

Not surprised. It goes against the traits of an open minded lib to want to read opposing points of view