I rather like JustWonders thought process, it's just simple enough to pass for logic without the added burden of being thoughtful.
The line " It's apparent that Blatham has not the slightest idea of how the US government works' was meant for Blatham but if you, nimh, are able to answer my post. Be my guest. Somehow it appears that you are only able to indulge in washerwoman's gossip. Grow up!
It may be blue potatoes to you, but washerwoman's gossip is my business, sir.
("Washerwoman's gossip". Like it.)
nimh wrote:Lash wrote:Stupid.
This is what I'm paying for.
Is what I thought - except, of course, I'm not paying.
twin_peaks_nikki wrote:Awhile back, it was a waste of money, an hour later, it's priceless.
Yeah, odd that was.
The partisan screaming match with people charging across aisles and "cowards run" were stupid. It looked like too much chocolate at a kindergarten.
The result, however, was a necessary bit of punctuation on a lot of fakery by the Democrats.
A drawdown of troops is already in the offing for 2006 and the Democrats know that. I'd have been just as happy if they'd voted on Murtha's bill because I guarantee you the results would have been exactly the same. As to Section 2 of Murtha's bill, it wouldn't work. He's a moron.
JustWonders wrote:Even the Vietnam vets serving in Iraq say it's nothing like Vietnam.
.
Irrelevant but would you kindly link your source for this irrelevant alleged factoid.
nimh wrote:Lash wrote:Stupid.
This is what I'm paying for.
Is what I thought - except, of course, I'm not paying.
twin_peaks_nikki wrote:Awhile back, it was a waste of money, an hour later, it's priceless.
Yeah, odd that was.
That is why I am constantly lashed out at. He can't get away with his nonsense when I am around.
Sure is fun to watch.
Now, now, now johnboy, that might cost you.
nimh- Washerswoman's business may indeed be yours but keep my name out of it. I did not address you, did I?
It is not polite to talk to anyone unless invited. And I did not invite you.
Mortkat wrote:nimh- Washerswoman's business may indeed be yours but keep my name out of it. I did not address you, did I?
It is not polite to talk to anyone unless invited. And I did not invite you.
When where you invited to post in this thread Mortkat? I can't seem to find that post. :wink:
Parados- You may not have read the post made by nimh. He, she? said-O my god, he's back again too. I was unaware that 195 or so posts would qualify me as being "back again".
Mortkat wrote:nimh- Washerswoman's business may indeed be yours but keep my name out of it. I did not address you, did I?
It is not polite to talk to anyone unless invited. And I did not invite you.
Goodness me! And I thought all forums here were open to all of us!
nimh wrote:Mortkat wrote:It is apparent that Blatham has not the slightest idea of how the US government works.
Blatham does not know that the House and Senate are the Legislative bodies.
Blatham has either forgotten or not read that the House and Senate HAD to be consulted in order for troops to be sent to Iraq. [..]
I am astounded that he does not know that.
Oh my god ... he's back again too.
A2K is definitely addictive, apparently.
Indeed.
Can't disguise the style though.
Style? Style? I don have any style. I don have to show you no stinkin style.
Why don't you quit acting like a child and get down to business.
All you have to do if you don't like my "style" and want to shut me down is to rebut my posts with evidence. It appears that there is a lot of blah-blah but that very few can even try to rebut my positions.
MortKat
You being very silly. Try the more mature approach. It persuades more people, really it does!
I do respond to people who use my correct name, Msolga but I am sorry because I must insist that when ideas are exchanged, the writers should try to use evidence to make their points and, if someone disagrees, they should try to rebut that evidence specifically and then post their position by giving evidence.
That is what is mature.
We will see if people can follow that guideline.
The Repub damage-control strategy on Murtha (you can see it above in a post by fox) is to focus on the word "immediately" and drop all the provisos. That's what they did with the motion, and that's what the talking point is (consistently repeated on RW sites and on Sunday talk shows).
Regardless, even a sane, truthful, responsible and competent administration would NOW have a huge problem re stability in Iraq and re financing/supporting whatever ongoing endeavors will be needed AND restoring world confidence in America's integrity and goodwill AND in restoring citizen trust in government AND in discovering/correcting how an executive branch could go so badly wrong in so many ways.
I doubt that things have gotten bad enough yet, as bad as they are, for the needed house-cleaning. Polls demonstrate how much American citizens' opinions are moving but so much power is maintained within established (during this administration and earlier) structures and institutions (eg the incumbency problem or the revolving door between administration employees with business/military) that I think the fall has to be steeper and deeper than it is so far.
I as well, blatham, but does it not seem that all the elements are there for the fall to continue?
Scandals at every level of leadership; investigations of top leaders in both the Congress and the WH; continuing Iraq war; economic woes for many ths winter.
I don't think these things bode well for whoever is in power...
Cycloptichorn
