What Did You Do In The War On Terror, Daddy

[maineman]

so...I take it that you cannot show me where in the bill we surrender anything to any enemy. Is that correct?

 

[mattskramer]

Good point. So we can conclude that:

Just because Congressional Democrats are pushing legislation that includes a rider attempting to usurp the President's authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive of this nation does not necessarily prove that the American people support it.

I agree. I wish that there were a polling service that would poll citizens on their views on particular bills. Then you could get a clear indication about public views.

 

[maineman]

I agree. I wish that there were a polling service that would poll citizens on their views on particular bills. Then you could get a clear indication about public views.

some polls do. For example:

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007

"As you may know, President Bush vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would have provided additional funds for the war in Iraq and would have set a specific date for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from that country. Do you approve or disapprove of Bush's decision to veto that bill?"

.

Approve 44%
Disapprove 54%
Unsure 2%

 

[Rosotar]

approval numbers don't address the fact that the people support the democrat's funding bill...approval ratings questions are not asked about the democrats in congress, but about congress, which, as we know, is nearly 50/50. Now address the poll questions. What do you think they mean about America's support for the war and the fact that they like the democrat's funding bill with deadlines?

This is interesting MM.

You asked RSR a direct question and rather than respond to the specifics in the question he derails the entire question with this....

The folks do not support surrender MM

which takes you full circle right back to where you started.

This is the same twisted logic and manipulative wordplay used by the Bush administration to not answer questions.

I think there's an epidemic of stupidity going on!

 

[maineman]

He never answers questions. He makes silly statements... and then when called on them, deliberately avoids answering them over and over again until his questioner get frustrated at punching the tarbaby and leaves... and then, RSR claims that he has "won" yet another "debate".




If I were a republican on this board, I would be sending him PMs begging him to STFU. He gives conservatives everywhere a bad name.

 

[red states rule]

so...I take it that you cannot show me where in the bill we surrender anything to any enemy. Is that correct?

When you tell the enemy when you are leaving and they will be able to spread their terror unchecked - that is surrender

 

[red states rule]

He never answers questions. He makes silly statements... and then when called on them, deliberately avoids answering them over and over again until his questioner get frustrated at punching the tarbaby and leaves... and then, RSR claims that he has "won" yet another "debate".




If I were a republican on this board, I would be sending him PMs begging him to STFU. He gives conservatives everywhere a bad name.

Silly statements to a lib like yiou is the truth that derails your rants

 

[Gunny]

He never answers questions. He makes silly statements... and then when called on them, deliberately avoids answering them over and over again until his questioner get frustrated at punching the tarbaby and leaves... and then, RSR claims that he has "won" yet another "debate".




If I were a republican on this board, I would be sending him PMs begging him to STFU. He gives conservatives everywhere a bad name.

Okay ... let's spell this out.

The bill is funding for the troops. Democrats attached a rider attempting usurp the authority of the President, and has NOTHING to do with funding.

What is the end result of those timelines being signed into law? They announce to the enemy the dates we are going to abandon the field to them.

That may not be surrendering one's army, but it IS surrendering the field.

 

[red states rule]

Okay ... let's spell this out.

The bill is funding for the troops. Democrats attached a rider attempting usurp the authority of the President, and has NOTHING to do with funding.

What is the end result of those timelines being signed into law? They announce to the enemy the dates we are going to abandon the field to them.

That may not be surrendering one's army, but it IS surrendering the field.

BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Annie]

10:10 CST Silence is deafening.

 

[red states rule]

10:10 CST Silence is deafening.

Do you think they want to surrender?

 

[Annie]

Do you think they want to surrender?

I wouldn't presume to speak for the appeasing asses.

 

[red states rule]

I wouldn't presume to speak for the appeasing asses.

Like a bad case of hemroids they will be back soon

 

[red states rule]

I wouldn't presume to speak for the appeasing asses.

If the Dems don't defund this war soon, Soros will be pissed.

 

[Annie]

Like a bad case of hemroids they will be back soon

I like you RSR, but you really need to know when to be quiet.

 

[red states rule]

listen to these soldiers and then tell me none of them could ever think they weren't being set up to fail or denied support from the anti-war propoganda machine.

If you're not going to listen to it in full, and really listen, don't bother opening the link or responding, please.

http://www.nmatv.com/flvplayer.swf?...ideo/39.flv&autostart=false&showfsbutton=true

~S

 

[Annie]

listen to these soldiers and then tell me none of them could ever think they weren't being set up to fail or denied support from the anti-war propoganda machine.

If you're not going to listen to it in full, and really listen, don't bother opening the link or responding, please.

http://www.nmatv.com/flvplayer.swf?...ideo/39.flv&autostart=false&showfsbutton=true

~S

Oookaaayyy, that was unbiased. NOT.

 

[red states rule]

Oookaaayyy, that was unbiased. NOT.

It is truthful and we heard from some of the troops who are trying to do their job

 

[red states rule]

voters like the funding bill and wish that Bush had not vetoed it....or did you miss that part?

The war in Iraq is not lost. We've done good things over there and accomplished a majority of our objectives. Our men and women of the Armed Forces deserve our unwavering support in completing the mission that so many have already given their lives to achieve. They do NOT deserve to be told their bravery, courage and belief in freedom was all for nothing and forced to return home as "failures" simply because it benefits the Democrats politically. The Dems need to stop betraying our troops and get behind them, really believe in their ability to complete the mission they've put their hearts and souls into for the past many years and not brutally take their pride and dignity from them simply so they can say George Bush failed.

Get over it. Hate Bush all you want. Impeach him. File lawsuits. Investigate. Publically humiliate him. But, enough is enough with the backstabbing of our troops and spitting on the graves of those who died via the anti-war insistence on clinging to ignorance.

 

[red states rule]

the fact that you keep running away from is that the funding bill is NOT a surrender bill and the AMerican people were supportive of it and were not supportive of the president's veto of it. America thought funding the troops but setting deadlines made sense.

sucks to be you, eh?

Dems don't have to lose the war...Dems are ready to just pick up and run away...there is a difference between losing and quitting. This war will not end when we leave Iraq...it will simply be fought on different ground and by civilians..

Dems are a tower of Jello when it comes to fighting terrorists