T1B

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:06 pm**

Let's see what the dems can do. Right now, we can see that they know how to party, and to smirk for 48 hours straight.

It's going to take a little bit more than that. A little less glee, and a little more pragmatism, please...

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:15 pm**

PSUFAN wrote:Let's see what the dems can do. Right now, we can see that they know how to party, and to smirk for 48 hours straight.

And with that they have already done as much as Chimpy.

They can't DO jack squat until the new Congress is in session.

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2006 9:17 pm**

RACK PSUFAN's objectivity.

BSmack, you're absolutely correct. But now that the game is over, they might be able to let us in on their master plan or something.

Just HOW do they propose to set about "change". Specifically when it comes to Iraq and the 'War on Terror'

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2006 9:39 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:RACK PSUFAN's objectivity.

BSmack, you're absolutely correct. But now that the game is over, they might be able to let us in on their master plan or something.

Just HOW do they propose to set about "change". Specifically when it comes to Iraq and the 'War on Terror'

The game ain't over.

But where they go from here depends in large part on how Bush and the remaining Congressional Republicans respond to Pelosi's 100 Hour agenda. This agenda is no secret.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00056.html

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2006 9:56 pm**

I'm more interested in Iraq. For instance, it's the primary reason Webb was elected.

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:03 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:I'm more interested in Iraq. For instance, it's the primary reason Webb was elected.

No, the primary reason Webb was elected is because he was a better candidate than Allen.

As for Iraq, I don't see a total withdrawal from Iraq. Now that Chimpy has gone and knocked down the house of cards that was Iraq, we can't just hand over half of it to Iran without some kind of resolution of the Iranian nuclear question.

This is going to take a whole lot of delicate negotiation, not exactly Chimpy's strong suit.

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:33 pm**

BSmack wrote:
PSUFAN wrote:Let's see what the dems can do. Right now, we can see that they know how to party, and to smirk for 48 hours straight.
And with that they have already done as much as Chimpy.

Not yet, anyway. Chimpy smirked for six years straight.

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:37 pm**

mvscal wrote:Oh Iran is just going to stroll right in and take over, huh? You can't possibly be that stupid...can you?

Quite frankly if Iran wants to take a few swings at that tar baby, then be my guest.

Who says Iran has to physically occupy the Shi'a areas?

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:47 pm**

BSmack wrote:
But where they go from here depends in large part on how Bush and the remaining Congressional Republicans respond to Pelosi's 100 Hour agenda. This agenda is no secret.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00056.html

"As in the first 100 hours the House meets after Democrats _ in her fondest wish _ win control in the Nov. 7 midterm elections and Pelosi takes the gavel as the first Madam Speaker in history.

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

I laughed.

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:50 pm**

Nancy's Pelosi's record on Israeli-related topics is perfect. She expresses interest in the situation in the country and has always participated in votes related to Israel. She has not harmed Israeli interests.

Refresh my memory here. Pelosi is an American, right?

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:54 pm**

mvscal wrote:Their proxies aren't taking it without a fight either. The Shiites are far from monolithic.

Iran could take over southern Iraq with nothing more than a sound truck and a tape recorded mullah's message. Overnight.

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:02 pm**

mvscal wrote:So what's stopping them?

Of course, you're totally clueless.

Why should they interfere at this point? You're doing their work for them, namely getting rid of those nasty Sunni insurgents, remember?

Man, you guys are soooooo gonna get a fruit basket from Tehran when this is all over.

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:29 pm**

I'm so right, it hurts...

...and you know it.

If you love Iran so much, why don't you marry them?

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:40 am**

mvscal wrote:The Badr's are only one faction among many competing factions. The Iraqi mullahs have more pull with Iraqis than Iranian mullahs.

The Shiite mullahs only distinguish themselves as Iraqi and Iranian in your ossified brain.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:34 pm**

mvscal wrote:The distinction is Najaf and Qom and the two different philosophies are diametrically opposed.

How? Does one advocate raping sheep while the other is for raping both sheep and goats?

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:42 pm**

mvscal wrote:The distinction is Najaf and Qom and the two different philosophies are diametrically opposed.

Jeeez, are you gripping...

:P

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:51 pm**

mvscal wrote: The Najaf Hawza is apolitical. They are called Quietists.

Most Iraqi Shiites follow Sistani's group.

Yup. Things sure are "quiet" these days in Iraq.

You ass.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:32 pm**

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:The distinction is Najaf and Qom and the two different philosophies are diametrically opposed.
How?
The Najaf Hawza is apolitical. They are called Quietists. They hold that clerics should avoid becoming involved in politics as much as possible because of their belief that political power corrupts their spiritual and moral authority. The Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is the Marja of the of the Najaf Hawza.

The Qom Hawza in Iran teaches the political brand of Shia Islam that resulted in the Iranian Revolution.

Sistani and the Ayatollah Khomeni absolutely detested each other. Most Iraqi Shiites follow Sistani's group.

Yet they ignore Sistani.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wirq03.xml

Meanwhile, al-Sadr has no qualms with seeking political power through his religious office.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:17 pm**

It's going to take a little bit more than that.

rack me

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:40 pm**

PSUFAN wrote:
It's going to take a little bit more than that.
rack me

It's going to take a little bit more than that.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:57 pm**

The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:
PSUFAN wrote:
It's going to take a little bit more than that.
rack me
It's going to take a little bit more than that.

rack you

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:07 pm**

Yep, I deserved that. Anyway, small wonder that Dems who rode in on the "End the War!!" ticket would wash up in Misery Bay.

Now we get to hear them try to reduce expectations for a while; meanwhile, Republicans will undoubtedly sweep through them again in 2008.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:00 pm**

PSUFAN wrote:meanwhile, Republicans will undoubtedly sweep through them again in 2008.

I would agree, except for one thing: there's also a Presidential election in '08.

The Republican candidates are an unimpressive enough lot as it is. And with nine of the ten (or ten of the eleven, if you count Fred Thompson) urging escalation of the war, there's no way they win the Presidency.

I could be wrong about this, but I think the Presidential election will have coattails that will affect the outcome of the Congressional elections.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:21 pm**

mvscal wrote:The only people with lower approval numbers than Shrub are Congressional Democrats.

Mainly because most people don't think they've done enough on Iraq.

By now, the American people know what they're getting when it comes to Smirky McFlightsuit (although, sadly, it took them six years to figure that out). Congressional Democrats promised something different, and thus far they've disappointed.

This election is going to turn on immigration not Iraq.

I laughed.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:38 pm**

Fact is, the Democrats can't run the issue.

I agree completely. They already DID run the issue. They blew that wad - and now, less than a single year later, they are forced to eat their words.

Persistent, well-reasoned opposition to the war is one thing...but what we saw instead from Dems, in sum, was opportunism.

Now, they have no credibility on either side of the war issue. They have almost as little cred as Republicans now.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:49 pm**

mvscal wrote:Iraq is passe. Nobody really gives a fuck.

Except, of course, those who have lost loved ones over there. And those who worry about possibly losing loved ones over there in the future.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:18 pm**

mvscal wrote:Your cheap emotional pap isn't going to sell here or anywhere else.

Last time I checked, illegal immigration hasn't killed anyone's kids. Oh, and btw . . .

[Iraq] is going to run its course regardless of the party in power. Immigration is the hotbutton that will decide the election.

You've really got the irony meter pegged here. Talk about an issue that will run its course regardless of the party in power, immigration is it. Or hadn't you noticed yet?

I find it a little strange that in your world, Democrats will be punished for failing to do anything about Iraq in six months, while Republicans will be rewarded for failing to do anything about immigration in six years.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:36 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
mvscal wrote:Your cheap emotional pap isn't going to sell here or anywhere else.
Last time I checked, illegal immigration hasn't killed anyone's kids. Oh, and btw . . .

Multiple sets of sun-bleached bones in the California and Arizona deserts would indicate otherwise.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:38 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
mvscal wrote:Your cheap emotional pap isn't going to sell here or anywhere else.
Last time I checked, illegal immigration hasn't killed anyone's kids. Oh, and btw . . .

Last time I checked, you were still a clueless dumbfuck

Last time I checked, Illegal immigrants were killing people in car wrecks every fucking day by driving drunk at full speed on the wrong side of the highway and then fleeing back to meh-he-co

I find it a little strange that in your world, Democrats will be punished for failing to do anything about Iraq in six months, while Republicans will be rewarded for failing to do anything about immigration in six years.

Immigration is going to be the deciding factor in which party's voters stay home on election day.

@#$%^$& double posts

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:44 pm**

Mikey wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:
mvscal wrote:Your cheap emotional pap isn't going to sell here or anywhere else.
Last time I checked, illegal immigration hasn't killed anyone's kids. Oh, and btw . . .

Multiple sets of sun-bleached bones in the California and Arizona deserts would indicate otherwise.

Registered voters' kids, anyway.

Cuda wrote:Last time I checked, you were still a clueless dumbfuck

I'm not the one who double-posted, now am I?

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:46 pm**

We'd all be better off if you didn't even single post, ass-juice

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:46 pm**

mvscal wrote:Dems can't even go home and say they tried to stop it.

They tried to stop it, but Smirky McFlightsuit vetoed the legislation.

The argument is about whether they tried hard enough, not whether they tried at all.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:48 pm**

Cuda wrote:We'd all be better off if you didn't even single post, ass-juice

Not that it's my job to remind you, but I think you forgot to kiss Dubya's rectum today.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:54 pm**

mvscal wrote:The only Constitutional measure Congress has available to stop a war is to pull the plug on funding.

All legislation is presumptively Constitutional unless and until it is successfully challenged in court. The burden of proof as to unconstitutionality is on the challenger, and they must meet the burden by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:57 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Smirky McFlightsuit

That's really not funny.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:03 pm**

mvscal wrote:
stuckinia wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:Smirky McFlightsuit
That's really not funny.
What's funny is that idiots like Terry have been outmanuevered at every turn by a fucking chimp.

Me? I have nothing to do with him.

Actually, it's Rove who's outmaneuvered the Democrats. Bush is only the puppet/empty suit/whatever other metaphor you prefer.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:09 pm**

Btw, it doesn't speak terribly well of your party either that you twice nominated for President someone you now refer to as a "chimp."

The Democrats have nominated some real winners over the years, but none of them quite fall to that level.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:13 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:Btw, it doesn't speak terribly well of your party either that you twice nominated for President someone you now refer to as a "chimp."

The Democrats have nominated some real winners over the years, but none of them quite fall to that level.
Except for the asshatted moron that our chimp stomped flat in 04 you mean.

"Stomped flat"?

If (roughly) 70,000 votes in Ohio had changed hands (officially, anyway), John Kerry would have won. No incumbent President has ever won re-election by such a narrow majority, ever.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:28 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:Btw, it doesn't speak terribly well of your party either that you twice nominated for President someone you now refer to as a "chimp."

The Democrats have nominated some real winners over the years, but none of them quite fall to that level.
Except for the asshatted moron that our chimp stomped flat in 04 you mean.
"Stomped flat"? If (roughly) 70,000 votes in Ohio had changed hands (officially, anyway), John Kerry would have won. No incumbent President has ever won re-election by such a narrow majority, ever.

how come you tards fail to mention the states Kerry won by an even less margin?

fucking tool.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:37 pm**

What's a less margin?

T1B

I think I'm with mvscal on this one.

I think I'm with mvscal on this one.

Re: I think I'm with mvscal on this one.

Re: I think I'm with mvscal on this one.