THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

cicerone imposter wrote:

The dems are blowing it; it's gonna affect the November 2008 elections.

Senate Dems fail to cut off war funds
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
25 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Anti-war Democrats in the Senate failed in an attempt to cut off funds for the Iraq war on Wednesday, a lopsided bipartisan vote that masked growing impatience within both political parties over President Bush's handling of the four-year conflict.

How is this possible?
I thought that stopping the war was the only reason the dems were elected?
Now you are saying they either cant or wont stop it?

But,arent they doing the "will of the people"?

Lets face it,the dems dont want to stop the war while they are in power,and they cant stop it while Bush is in the WH.

If they stop the funding and force the US to leave Iraq,and the ME then falls into complee and total chaos,then the dems will get the political blame for it.
They dont want that to happen.

If the dems in congress do nothing,they get the political blame from their various constituent groups.
Either way,the dems will lose,and they dont want that.
They want to be seen as trying to do something,allthe while hoping that Bush will end the war BEFORE the 08 elections.
If that happens,the dems can take the credit.
If it doesnt happen,the dems will get the blame because they campaigned on a platform of ending the war.

So,the dems dont want the war to end,they cant afford it politically.

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=circumstantial+evidence&x=21&y=9

Main Entry: circumstantial evidence Pronunciation Guide
Function: noun
: evidence that tends to prove a fact in issue by proving other events or circumstances which according to the common experience of mankind are usually or always attended by the fact in issue and that therefore affords a basis for a reasonable inference by the jury or court of the occurrence of the fact in issue

SOURCES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF GEORGE SOROS'S FUNDING

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=circumstantial+evidence&x=21&y=9

Main Entry: circumstantial evidence Pronunciation Guide
Function: noun
: evidence that tends to prove a fact in issue by proving other events or circumstances which according to the common experience of mankind are usually or always attended by the fact in issue and that therefore affords a basis for a reasonable inference by the jury or court of the occurrence of the fact in issue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros#Influencing_media

http://www.earstohear.net/soros.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_Soros

"'If we assess the foreign policy accomplishments of the Bush administration since Sept. 11, the scorecard is quite dismal,' Soros said. 'There are some people in the Bush administration who have the same mentality as Arafat or Sharon. I can name names, like Ashcroft, Cheney and Rumsfeld, although that is considered impolite.'" --George Soros April 9, 2002.

"'Although the terrorist threat is real, and we must defend against it, we are going about it the wrong way. What makes the situation so dangerous is that nobody dares to say so. The nation is endangered, therefore it is unpatriotic to criticize our leader,' Soros said. 'That is not what has made this country great. The strength of this country lies in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights and the freedom of speech and thought." --George Soros April 9, 2002.

"This was an event caused by numerous acts of complacency, and a lack of standards at the platoon level," said the investigating officer, Lt. Col. Timothy Daugherty, in the summary.

ican711nm wrote:

SOURCES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF GEORGE SOROS'S FUNDING

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=circumstantial+evidence&x=21&y=9

Main Entry: circumstantial evidence Pronunciation Guide
Function: noun
: evidence that tends to prove a fact in issue by proving other events or circumstances which according to the common experience of mankind are usually or always attended by the fact in issue and that therefore affords a basis for a reasonable inference by the jury or court of the occurrence of the fact in issue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros#Influencing_media

http://www.earstohear.net/soros.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_Soros

You first two sources are Bill O'Liar. Better come up with something better than that if you want anyone to believe you.

You better come up with something better than that if you want me to think you are rational. Those who slander those they disagree with rather than rebuting their arguments with evidence, are frauds or fools. Your cute allegation that Bill O'Reilly is a liar failed to include your examples of Bill O'Reilly lies.

Quote:

Soros has been criticized for his large donations, as he also pushed for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 which was intended to ban "soft money" contributions to federal election campaigns. Soros has responded that his donations to unaffiliated organizations do not raise the same corruption issues as donations directly to the candidates or political parties.

Right! They raise different corruption issues than do donations given directly to candidates or political parties. We Americans are now confronted with a far more serious corruption issue. Organizations of individuals like the Soros gang, are making donations to political party campaign groups that average more than ten times the alleged $2,000 per candidate legal limit.

The last source has some Soros quotes;

Quote:

"'If we assess the foreign policy accomplishments of the Bush administration since Sept. 11, the scorecard is quite dismal,' Soros said. 'There are some people in the Bush administration who have the same mentality as Arafat or Sharon. I can name names, like Ashcroft, Cheney and Rumsfeld, although that is considered impolite.'" --George Soros April 9, 2002.

"'Although the terrorist threat is real, and we must defend against it, we are going about it the wrong way. What makes the situation so dangerous is that nobody dares to say so. The nation is endangered, therefore it is unpatriotic to criticize our leader,' Soros said. 'That is not what has made this country great. The strength of this country lies in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights and the freedom of speech and thought." --George Soros April 9, 2002.

BINGO, right on the money, both of them.

The principles of the Declaration of Independence are not self-evident truths but arrangements necessitated by our inherently imperfect understanding.

ican, Your skills in the English language is lacking big time. There is no contradiction on those two statements made by Soros.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The principles of the Declaration of Independence are not self-evident truths but arrangements necessitated by our inherently imperfect understanding.

The strength of this country lies in the Declaration of Independence ...

Your attempts to paint Soros as some sort of behind-the-scenes puppet master have failed spectacularly. You haven't shown that he's spent any more money than others have on the Republican side (far less, actually). You haven't been able to show any media companies that he's bought or runs, any actual named people in the media, or in either party.

You've got nothing but innuendo and accusations, and that's it. He's a boogeyman for your side, someone you can blame your problems on. It's f*cking pathetic that after all this time crowing about Soros, you've got nothing.

Cycloptichorn

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=circumstantial+evidence&x=21&y=9

Main Entry: circumstantial evidence Pronunciation Guide
Function: noun
: evidence that tends to prove a fact in issue by proving other events or circumstances which according to the common experience of mankind are usually or always attended by the fact in issue and that therefore affords a basis for a reasonable inference by the jury or court of the occurrence of the fact in issue

ican, It says they are not self-evident truths that are misunderstood.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Your attempts to paint Soros as some sort of behind-the-scenes puppet master have failed spectacularly. You haven't shown that he's spent any more money than others have on the Republican side (far less, actually). You haven't been able to show any media companies that he's bought or runs, any actual named people in the media, or in either party.

You've got nothing but innuendo and accusations, and that's it. He's a boogeyman for your side, someone you can blame your problems on. It's f*cking pathetic that after all this time crowing about Soros, you've got nothing.

Cycloptichorn

Your allegations are fantasies and falsifications.

You can yet redeam yourself by reading with comprehension:

SOURCES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF GEORGE SOROS'S FUNDING

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=circumstantial+evidence&x=21&y=9

Main Entry: circumstantial evidence Pronunciation Guide
Function: noun
: evidence that tends to prove a fact in issue by proving other events or circumstances which according to the common experience of mankind are usually or always attended by the fact in issue and that therefore affords a basis for a reasonable inference by the jury or court of the occurrence of the fact in issue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros#Influencing_media

http://www.earstohear.net/soros.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_Soros

...
Weak, that you would present such a pathetic offering as evidence! You have evidence of nothing.

Now, address the fact that Mellon-Scaife alone has contributed 50 times as much as Soros has, or I will label you a Poltroon.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
Weak, that you would present such a pathetic offering as evidence! You have evidence of nothing.

Now, address the fact that Mellon-Scaife alone has contributed 50 times as much as Soros has, or I will label you a Poltroon.

Cycloptichorn

Label me what you will. Your opiniated diatribes absent supporting evidence count for zero.

What is the total amount that George Soros and the rest of his gang have donated? Please include your evidence.

What is the total amount that Mellon-Scaife have donated? Please include your evidence.

Management of the Scaife family foundations

Through contacts made at Hoover and elsewhere, Scaife became a major, early supporter of the Heritage Foundation, which has since become one of Washington's most influential public policy research institutes. Later, he supported such varied conservative and libertarian organizations as:

* American Enterprise Institute
* Atlas Economic Research Foundation
* Center for the Study of Popular Culture (headed by David Horowitz)
* Federalist Society
* Foundation for Economic Education
* Free Congress Foundation (headed by Paul Weyrich)
* Freedom House
* GOPAC (headed by Newt Gingrich)
* Independent Women's Forum
* Intercollegiate Studies Institute (which operates the Collegiate Network)
* Judicial Watch
* Landmark Legal Foundation
* Media Research Center (headed by Brent Bozell)
* Pacific Legal Foundation
* Pittsburgh World Affairs Council
* Reason Foundation

By 1998 his foundations were listed among donors to over 100 such groups, to which he had disbursed some $340 million by 2002.

Quote:

...
By 1998 his foundations were listed among donors to over 100 such groups, to which he had disbursed some $340 million by 2002.

Even if we use your claimed numbers for Soros, his donations don't come close to 340 million dollars.

Nice try tho

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

...
By 1998 his foundations were listed among donors to over 100 such groups, to which he had disbursed some $340 million by 2002.

Even if we use your claimed numbers for Soros, his donations don't come close to 340 million dollars.

Nice try tho

Cycloptichorn

More silly sophistry.

We are not discussing total donations. We are discussing total donations to politicians and political campaigning groups.