Your understanding of the English language leaves much to be desired. "No skin off my butt" is my observation on however you wish to decipher that article. I didn't offer you anything.
mysteryman wrote: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.
Since most polls have said they disapprove of cutting off funds to the military, I would have been really surprised if the bill passed congress. Cutting off funds is looked on as not supporting the troops. Never mind that the republicans did it when they wanted us out the Clinton wars and no one said anything about "not supporting the troops." The polls have said they supported a timeline and that is what passed congress and was vetoed by Bush.
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
The dems are afraid of their own shadows.
May 16, 2007
Democrats Signal End to Impasse on War Spending
By JEFF ZELENY and CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, May 16 ?- Congressional Democratic leaders signaled today that they were ready to give ground to end an impasse with President Bush over war spending after the Senate soundly rejected a Democratic plan to block money for major combat operations in Iraq beginning next spring.
The 67-to-29 vote against the proposal demonstrated that a significant majority of senators remained unwilling to demand a withdrawal of forces despite their own misgivings and public unease over the war.
Forty-seven Republicans, one independent and 19 Democrats opposed the plan drafted by Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, which would have limited spending mainly to counterterrorism and the training of Iraqi troops after March 31, 2008.
The margin also illustrated the divide among Democrats over how far to go in challenging Mr. Bush over the war. All four Democratic senators seeking the presidential nomination, including Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, were among the 29 who backed the proposal. Among those opposed were Democratic leaders on military policy like Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a former Army officer.
After the vote, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader and a co-sponsor of the Feingold plan, said he was committed to delivering legislation acceptable to Mr. Bush by the end of next week. He conceded that the compromise was likely to disappoint war opponents who had pushed Congress to set a pull-out date.
"On this issue, Democrats in the Senate start with 49 votes and the opposition has 50 so it is a little hard to flex your muscles too much when you start one vote behind," Mr. Reid said, referring to the general split on war issues in the Senate.
We don't need enemies.
Gas May Have Harmed Troops, Scientists Say
By IAN URBINA
Published: May 17, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 16 ?- Scientists working with the Defense Department have found evidence that a low-level exposure to sarin nerve gas ?- the kind experienced by more than 100,000 American troops in the Persian Gulf war of 1991 ?- could have caused lasting brain deficits in former service members.
Though the results are preliminary, the study is notable for being financed by the federal government and for being the first to make use of a detailed analysis of sarin exposure performed by the Pentagon, based on wind patterns and plume size.
The report, to be published in the June issue of the journal NeuroToxicology, found apparent changes in the brain's connective tissue ?- its so-called white matter ?- in soldiers exposed to the gas. The extent of the brain changes ?- less white matter and slightly larger brain cavities ?- corresponded to the extent of exposure, the study found.
Previous studies had suggested that exposure affected the brain in some neural regions, but the evidence was not convincing to many scientists. The new report is likely to revive the long-debated question of why so many troops returned from that war with unexplained physical problems. Many in the scientific community have questioned whether the so-called gulf war illnesses have a physiological basis, and far more research will have to be done before it is known whether those illnesses can be traced to exposure to sarin. The long-term effects of sarin on the brain are still not well understood.
But several lawmakers who were briefed on the study say the Department of Veterans Affairs is now obligated to provide increased neurological care to veterans who may have been exposed.
In March 1991, a few days after the end of the gulf war, American soldiers exploded two large caches of ammunition and missiles in Khamisiyah, Iraq. Some of the missiles contained the dangerous nerve gases sarin and cyclosarin. Based on wind patterns and the size of the plume, the Department of Defense has estimated that more than 100,000 American troops may have been exposed to at least small amounts of the gases.
When the roughly 700,000 deployed troops returned home, about one in seven began experiencing a mysterious set of ailments, often called gulf war illnesses, with problems including persistent fatigue, chronic headaches, joint pain and nausea. Those symptoms persist today for more than 150,000 of them, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs, more than the number of troops exposed to the gases.
You first two sources are Bill O'Liar. Better come up with something better than that if you want anyone to believe you.
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.
I never even read a thing of Soros, but if the above is an example, not a bad person to read from.
On the topic of iraq, we are getting so desperate to prove we're winning, we're getting careless of soldiers lives as well as the civilians in Iraq.
Report Says Soldiers Were Not Protected
Quote:"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.
xingu wrote:
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.
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.
GEORGE SOROS in his 2004 book, page 159, [i]The Bubble of American Supremacy[/i], wrote:The principles of the Declaration of Independence are not self-evident truths but arrangements necessitated by our inherently imperfect understanding.
I guess in the interval 2002 to 2004, Soros changed his mind about in what the strength of America lies.
ican, Your skills in the English language is lacking big time. There is no contradiction on those two statements made by Soros.
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
cicerone imposter wrote:ican, Your skills in the English language is lacking big time. There is no contradiction on those two statements made by Soros.
Oh yes there is a contradiction (emphasis added):
Congress, July 4, 1776 wrote: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.
But Soros said:
Quote:The principles of the Declaration of Independence are not self-evident truths but arrangements necessitated by our inherently imperfect understanding.
and previously Soros said:
Quote:The strength of this country lies in the Declaration of Independence ...
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
cicerone imposter wrote:ican, It says they are not self-evident truths that are misunderstood.
This sophistry of yours is very very ... very funny!
ican711nm wrote: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
Circumstantial evidence is weak evidence. It's hardly above Anecdotal for reliability.
You have no direct evidence whatsoever, and cannot back up the wild claims you've made that Soros has 'bought' the Democratic party or any of the news media.
You ignored Xingu's post which showed how idiotic those sources you have posted are; the first two are merely O'Reilly ranting without any proof at all supplied. They are not evidence of any type, not circumstancial or any other type. They are allegation and innuendo.
Your third source doesn't show any actual evidence that supports your claims, though it does seem to be better than rumormongering.
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
Soros said: The principles of the Declaration of Independence are not self-evident truths but arrangements necessitated by our inherently imperfect understanding.
This is simply supported by the christian right to take away: "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.
This is proof that there is "inherently imperfect understanding" concerning our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Where's the contradiction?
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.
ican711nm wrote: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.
No problem at all. You see, I can provide evidence for things, unlike you, Poltroon.
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mellon_Scaife#Politics_and_philathropy
Quote: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.
Even if we use your claimed numbers for Soros, his donations don't come close to 340 million dollars.
Nice try tho
Cycloptichorn
ican711nm wrote: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.
There is no difference between organizations such as GOPAC, the Media Research Center, and the AEI, and political campaigning groups. They exist solely to support Republican candidates, and that's it.
Nice piece of sophistry yourself there
Cycloptichorn
