Friday, February 16, 2007

My Response to the House and Senate

Ladies and gentlemen of Congress (and I use those terms very loosely), I listened with interest as the Democrats and some of the Republicans have decided to send a message to President Bush by proposing, voting on, and possibly passing non-binding resolutions criticizing the President for his proposed troop surge. Along with these non-binding resolutions is a threat to defund the surge.

Of course, none of this actually means anything...

For the uninitiated, a non-binding resolution is Congress's way of making a statement without actually doing anything to back up that statement. In other words, Congress just became John Kerry. No matter what kind of spin the media and the Democrats put on it, the fact both proposals were non-binding signals one thing: Democrats and Republicans who support the resolutions are intellectually dishonest cowards. They can't bring themselves to tell us how they really feel, so they hide behind a rebuke with all the force of a Frenchman's handshake.

But, since you're keen on the non-binding resolutions, I've written one of my own. I hope you like it.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT BECAUSE

1) Democrats lied to get into office by promising to do things for the American people within the first 100 hours and not delivering,
2) Democrats have been abject failures in waging the war on terrorism,
3) Democrats have openly and privately attacked our soldiers both home and abroad,
4) Democrats have not "drained the swamp" and have, in fact, been found guilty of the very corruption they claim to be fighting in the Republican Party, and
5) the war on terrorism is too important to be left to corrupt, intellectually dishonest, and cowardly people,

That the undersigned do hereby consider Election 2006 to be the non-binding resolution of the American voters. As a result, the results of said election are hereby nullified and new elections are to be held as soon as possible.

Signed this day, February 16, in the year of our Lord 2007,

Thomas Lindaman

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yep. The Democrats have failed to undo the damage caused by Republicans over the last 6 years in 6 weeks...

Throw 'em out...

shrimplate said...

When are you enlisting?

TLindaman said...

shrimplate said...
When are you enlisting?

February 17, 2007 2:19:00 PM CST



When the Democrats stop being hypocritical intellectually dishonest cowards.

In other words, not anytime soon. :-)

TLindaman said...

Anonymous said...
Yep. The Democrats have failed to undo the damage caused by Republicans over the last 6 years in 6 weeks...

Throw 'em out...

February 17, 2007 1:51:00 PM CST


As I expected, you missed the point completely. Instead of trying to excuse the Democrats' utter intellectual dishonesty, maybe you would be better served in demanding the Democrats stop trying to pretend to be pro-troop and say what we all know they believe: that they loathe our military.

Gee, seems one of the faux left's heroes wrote something similar once...

faldon said...

Nonsense. That non-resolution serves to get Bush to cooperate on the Iraq withdrawal rather than to make him an antagonistic force.

--1) Democrats lied to get into office by promising to do things for the American people within the first 100 hours and not delivering,--

Wha? In its first 100 hours, the Democratic Congress raised the minimum wage, implemented the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission (a
commission for which Democrats advocated in the first place, let's not forget), lowered the costs of college tuition for hundreds of
Americans and now is moving forward on energy-efficiency programs. Or are you one of those people arguing about the term "100 hours"?

--2) Democrats have been abject failures in waging the war on terrorism,--

The war in Iraq has increased terrorism sevenfold worldwide. Even the NIE confirms increased terrorism. Or are you going to imply the NIE is a bunch of Liberals?

--3) Democrats have openly and privately attacked our soldiers both home and abroad,--

Great, let's hear the citations! I'm sure the Dems have called american vets traitors, which the GOP has NEVER done, right?

--4) Democrats have not "drained the swamp" and have, in fact, been found guilty of the very corruption they claim to be fighting in the Republican Party,--

Oh, really? Where's the Dem people like Porter Goss? Trent Lott? Jeff Gannon? Armstrong Williams? Jack Abramoff? Tom Delay? Scooter Libby? Scanlon? Safavian? Randy Cunningham? Frist? Chuck McGee? Allen Raymond? James Tobin? Scott Falwell? Prokos? Ellis? Ernie Fletcher? Brian Hicks? Bob Taft? Tom Noe? John Rowland? Peter Ellef? Bill Janklow?

--and 5) the war on terrorism is too important to be left to corrupt, intellectually dishonest, and cowardly people,--

Then why

--When the Democrats stop being hypocritical intellectually dishonest cowards. In other words, not anytime soon. :-)--

Then sign up now. Regardless, it's no excuse for why you didn't enlist when the Republicans were in control.

--Instead of trying to excuse the Democrats' utter intellectual dishonesty, maybe you would be better served in demanding the Democrats stop trying to pretend to be pro-troop and say what we all know they believe: that they loathe our military. Gee, seems one of the faux left's heroes wrote something similar once... --

Nice try. Clinton wrote: "And that is where I am now, writing to you because you have been good to me and have a right to know what I think and feel. I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you to understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give. To many of us, it is no longer clear what is service and what is disservice, or if it is clear, the conclusion is likely to be illegal."

He was referring to many people who opposed the war in Vietnam. Where does he say HE or DEMOCRATS loathe the military?

Pro-troop? Like cutting their benefits?
Like using deferments, the national guard, or anal boils to avoid the draft without having the guts to protest said draft? Like making jokes like "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and the tank can still be blown up!"? Like calling generals like Murtha and Schwartzkopf traitors? Or are you going to trot out Kerry's botched joke to make it sound like he's anti-military?

You keep repeating "faux left" as a buffer. What is the difference between the "faux left" and what you consider the REAL left?
Go on, tell us precisely and in detail what the "real left" is.

And don't forget to tack on a passive-aggressive smiley. It's a hit in havens like your own blog or a right-wing chatroom. Wouldn't work on usenet, would it? Hell, it wouldn't even work on a FARK message board. RW mouthpieces only work when the filter is on.

TLindaman said...

faldon said...
Nonsense. That non-resolution serves to get Bush to cooperate on the Iraq withdrawal rather than to make him an antagonistic force.


Nice excuse. Why was it non-binding, then? A non-binding resolution has no force behind it and, thus, doesn't commit anyone to do anything. Brilliant strategy: come up with something that nobody has to follow and, thus, nobody can get blamed for.

--1) Democrats lied to get into office by promising to do things for the American people within the first 100 hours and not delivering,--

Wha? In its first 100 hours, the Democratic Congress raised the minimum wage, implemented the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission (a
commission for which Democrats advocated in the first place, let's not forget), lowered the costs of college tuition for hundreds of
Americans and now is moving forward on energy-efficiency programs. Or are you one of those people arguing about the term "100 hours"?


Your premise is wrong because nothing has been signed law yet. All the House did was pass bills, which does not constitute passing them.

Nancy Pelosi made a promise to pass legislation within the first 100 hours. She failed on every single point. In fact, Pelosi was fudging the timeclock to make her first 100 hour pledge.

And what about Steny Hoyer stating the House would be working 5 days a week? Apparently taking a day off for a BCS bowl game was okay...

But you're upset over me pointing out the truth, apparently...

--2) Democrats have been abject failures in waging the war on terrorism,--

The war in Iraq has increased terrorism sevenfold worldwide. Even the NIE confirms increased terrorism. Or are you going to imply the NIE is a bunch of Liberals?


The war on Iraq has not increased terrorism worldwide because the terrorists were already there. Now, they're acting on their orders. Hard to make the claim that we're creating new terrorists when the terrorists were already out there. But that's the beauty of your side's argument: it can't be proven or disproven.

By the way, not once has a Democrat come forward with a legitimate and viable plan to address that fact.

--3) Democrats have openly and privately attacked our soldiers both home and abroad,--

Great, let's hear the citations! I'm sure the Dems have called american vets traitors, which the GOP has NEVER done, right?


Let's see...

Dick Durban compares our troops stationed at Gitmo to Nazis.

John Kerry calls our troops in Iraq stupid.

John Murtha accused soldiers of killing civillians, as John Kerry also did.

And those are just the liberals in government. DailyKos, I'm sure, has plenty of opinions on the troops that are just as negative, if not worse.

--4) Democrats have not "drained the swamp" and have, in fact, been found guilty of the very corruption they claim to be fighting in the Republican Party,--

Oh, really? Where's the Dem people like Porter Goss? Trent Lott? Jeff Gannon? Armstrong Williams? Jack Abramoff? Tom Delay? Scooter Libby? Scanlon? Safavian? Randy Cunningham? Frist? Chuck McGee? Allen Raymond? James Tobin? Scott Falwell? Prokos? Ellis? Ernie Fletcher? Brian Hicks? Bob Taft? Tom Noe? John Rowland? Peter Ellef? Bill Janklow?


William Jefferson. Hillary Clinton. Harry Reid. John Kerry. Barack Obama. Nancy Pelosi. John Murtha. Those are names you should recognize because they're all prominent Democrats who have been suspected of illegal activity or activity that is against the Congressional Ethics rules.

And not one of them is bottom of the barrel, like you've had to scrape to come up with the list of Republicans you did.

--and 5) the war on terrorism is too important to be left to corrupt, intellectually dishonest, and cowardly people,--

Then why

--When the Democrats stop being hypocritical intellectually dishonest cowards. In other words, not anytime soon. :-)--

Then sign up now. Regardless, it's no excuse for why you didn't enlist when the Republicans were in control.


1) It's a volunteer military.
2) I'd follow orders, which is what your side claims is the problem.
3) If you want to change things in the military, wouldn't you be obligated to go and enlist?
4) You've made the illogical mistake of linking support of the war effort with being required to serve. If that was the case, you would have to have served during Clinton's Administration to avoid being a hypocrite.

Until you prove otherwise, you're a hypocrite.

--Instead of trying to excuse the Democrats' utter intellectual dishonesty, maybe you would be better served in demanding the Democrats stop trying to pretend to be pro-troop and say what we all know they believe: that they loathe our military. Gee, seems one of the faux left's heroes wrote something similar once... --

Nice try. Clinton wrote: "And that is where I am now, writing to you because you have been good to me and have a right to know what I think and feel. I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you to understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give. To many of us, it is no longer clear what is service and what is disservice, or if it is clear, the conclusion is likely to be illegal."

He was referring to many people who opposed the war in Vietnam. Where does he say HE or DEMOCRATS loathe the military?


For one, you're not quoting his letter accurately. He wrote, and I quote, "I loathe the military."

And if that wasn't good enough for you, you should check out how shabbily he and his wife treated the military during his Presidency. They had an active distrust of the military and other authority figures.

Sorry, but you've been busted again.


Pro-troop? Like cutting their benefits?


Sorry, but that's a wrong answer. Bush didn't cut benefits. That's a lie the faux left keeps throwing out there as a means to divert attention away from their own disdain for the military.

Like using deferments, the national guard, or anal boils to avoid the draft without having the guts to protest said draft?


You'd prefer the Clinton method and lying to the ROTC? LOL


Like making jokes like "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and the tank can still be blown up!"?

It's called "common sense." Try it sometime.

Like calling generals like Murtha and Schwartzkopf traitors?


Murtha wasn't a general.

And Schwartzkopf was not called a traitor.

Two more lies to add to the pile...

Or are you going to trot out Kerry's botched joke to make it sound like he's anti-military?


I've read the script. What Kerry said wasn't a joke. He was merely stating what he and his fellow faux liberals believe: the military is a bunch of rubes.

And given the fact it took him days to come up with the "botched joke" excuse, something tells me it wasn't really a joke.

You keep repeating "faux left" as a buffer. What is the difference between the "faux left" and what you consider the REAL left?
Go on, tell us precisely and in detail what the "real left" is.


Liberalism from a political standpoint supports the rights of the individual over the government. Faux liberalism supports the power of the government over the rights of the individual. Sounds quite a bit like the bunch running things in Washington, doesn't it?


And don't forget to tack on a passive-aggressive smiley. It's a hit in havens like your own blog or a right-wing chatroom. Wouldn't work on usenet, would it? Hell, it wouldn't even work on a FARK message board. RW mouthpieces only work when the filter is on.

February 24, 2007 8:36:00 PM CST


I haven't filtered you yet.

Checkmate. You lost. Badly. :-)

faldon said...

--Nice excuse. Why was it non-binding, then? A non-binding resolution has no force behind it and, thus, doesn't commit anyone to do anything. Brilliant strategy: come up with something that nobody has to follow and, thus, nobody can get blamed for.--

It's merely a way of cautioning Bush to find his OWN way to effect the withdrawal with some dignity, that way Bush can also take some credit. What would you rather they do?

--Nancy Pelosi made a promise to pass legislation within the first 100 hours. She failed on every single point.--

And she got the bills through. The Democrats did as they promised. If Bush vetos them or the Republicans decide to filibuster, that doesn't change the fact that the DEMOCRATS followed through. It's up to the GOP now to do the right thing. The bills are passed and moving through. They're doing their job.

--In fact, Pelosi was fudging the timeclock to make her first 100 hour pledge.--

Whether you go by an "active time spent" clock or a "session clock" they still got everything done within 100 hours. You're not one of those people that honestly felt she meant 100 continous hours, right? In the history of politics I don't recall "First 100 hours" EVER being referred to anything but working hours on the floor.

Honestly, I can understand having legitimate beefs with some of these politicians, but the "100 hour" thing is just silly. They got the bills passed within 100 hours, so now it's an issue of them not passing them while off the clock? Come on. They got them through fast.

--And what about Steny Hoyer stating the House would be working 5 days a week? Apparently taking a day off for a BCS bowl game was okay...--

Mr. Hoyer made it clear from the beginning that not every week would be a five-day work week. Even the quote people are drawing this 5-day work week was, "We'll be working almost every day in January, starting with the 4th." He said ALMOST. Congress was never scheduled to be voting on that day, anyway. Besides, Rep. John Boehner, the Republican Minority Leader in the House of Representatives put in the request for the day off. And in the interest of comity, Democrats granted it.

--But you're upset over me pointing out the truth, apparently...--

What truth?

--The war on Iraq has not increased terrorism worldwide because the terrorists were already there. Now, they're acting on their orders.--

And why are they acting on their orders?

--Hard to make the claim that we're creating new terrorists when the terrorists were already out there. But that's the beauty of your side's argument: it can't be proven or disproven.--

Well, what else can the war on terrorism be proven by, by anything other than... terrorism?

--By the way, not once has a Democrat come forward with a legitimate and viable plan to address that fact.--

And what's the Republicans' plan been, Tom? Have a half-hearted battle in Afghanistan then go into a full-blown war with Iraq? The terrorists that attacked us weren't from Iraq, you know that.

Besides, how can you write up a step-by-step plan to fight a war against an idea or a belief?

National Security is a government initiative that requires network of agencies. The Republican Party believes in SMALL government, so how can they truly be in favor of that?

--Dick Durban compares our troops stationed at Gitmo to Nazis.--

Durbin said: "If I read this to you and did not tell you it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings."

He said AMERICANS, not soldiers. Many of the people who commited those crimes weren't soldiers. Tell me, Thomas: If the torture techniques were described to you without specifying who, where, or when they happened... would you think it was Americans that did it? Durbin's point was clear: Americans are NOT supposed to act that way, because that's NOT who we are. Durbin's only crime was pulling a Godwin.

--John Kerry calls our troops in Iraq stupid.--

You still believe that? Listen to the entire speech he made and you will see that he was referring to the President and not troops. He never mentioned troops or soldiers but did mention the President in the immediately preceding line. He flubbed the line which was meant to be "You get US stuck in Iraq."

--John Murtha accused soldiers of killing civillians,--

Murtha said that sources within the military told HIM that an internal investigation showed that that soldiers killed civilians. Murtha also said: "It's an isolated incident. But that's why it's so important to get it out in the open and get the punishment at the appropriate places." Murtha limited his criticisms to those involved in the incident and the reported cover-up.

--as John Kerry also did.--

And soldiers DIDN'T kill civilians in Vietnam? Kerry didn't seperate himself from them. He made those statements because he was trying to end that awful war.

--And those are just the liberals in government.--

And you honestly think Republicans haven't attacked soldiers just because of their political affilitation? McCain?

--DailyKos, I'm sure, has plenty of opinions on the troops that are just as negative, if not worse.--

And you honestly feel armchair Republican bloggers don't trash vets if their political affiliation is in opposition of theirs?
They accused Kerry of self-inflicting his war wounds, for god's sake!

So far all I'm seeing is a disdain for people who CLAIM to be "soldiers" but who aren't worthy of wearing the uniform.
The marines I know are quite ashamed of what happened at Gitmo (strangely, many of them don't follow politics, and don't seem to be aware that many of them weren't soldiers).

--William Jefferson. Hillary Clinton. Harry Reid. John Kerry. Barack Obama. Nancy Pelosi. John Murtha. Those are names you should recognize because they're all prominent Democrats who have been suspected of illegal activity or activity that is against the Congressional Ethics rules. And not one of them is bottom of the barrel, like you've had to scrape to come up with the list of Republicans you did.--

My list were people who have been convicted or have confessed, not "suspected." You've got me on William Jefferson's lying about a BJ, yes.

--1) It's a volunteer military. 2) I'd follow orders, which is what your side claims is the problem. 3) If you want to change things in the military, wouldn't you be obligated to go and enlist? 4) You've made the illogical mistake of linking support of the war effort with being required to serve. If that was the case, you would have to have served during Clinton's Administration to avoid being a hypocrite. Until you prove otherwise, you're a hypocrite.--

No, because I never claimed I would join. You said you would when the Dems become honest.

--For one, you're not quoting his letter accurately. He wrote, and I quote, "I loathe the military."--

Here is the ENTIRE LETTER:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/draftletter.html

What letter are you referring to where he says "I loathe the military"? Do you have a link to this other letter?

--And if that wasn't good enough for you, you should check out how shabbily he and his wife treated the military during his Presidency. They had an active distrust of the military and other authority figures.--

In what way?

--Sorry, but you've been busted again.--

You've provided a quote without a citation, and made a sweeping statement without specifics. I don't see how that's busting someone.

--Sorry, but that's a wrong answer. Bush didn't cut benefits.--

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2153-2003Jun16?language=printer

http://inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=465_0_2_0_C

--That's a lie the faux left keeps throwing out there as a means to divert attention away from their own disdain for the military.--

How is opposing the war in Iraq, and blasting people who aren't behaving in a military manner, disdaining the military?

--You'd prefer the Clinton method and lying to the ROTC? LOL--

He gave up the ROTC to put himself up for the draft. He was lucky, his name didn't come up.
Regardless, he at least had the guts to protest the war.
It's like people who trash John Kerry, who fought in Vietnam AND protested the war.
Bush did neither. Neither did Cheney. If they were vocally opposed to the Vietnam war,
I wouldn't have cared if they evaded it, no matter how they did it.

--It's called "common sense."--

It's common sense to use a joke to respond to not providing armor?

--Try it sometime.--

Ad Hominem. I never accused you of not using common sense. Are you going to back that up?

--Murtha wasn't a general.--

That was an error on my part, yes. I meant to type Colonel and General.

--And Schwartzkopf was not called a traitor.--

People who were against W's war in Iraq have been called traitors for years. Schwarzkopf was against it.

--Two more lies to add to the pile...--

As far as Murtha being a general: That was an typographical error, not a lie. Why would I lie about something that could easily be refuted by a link to wikipedia? Do you think I could slip something like that past YOU? Joe Schmoe, maybe.

--I've read the script. What Kerry said wasn't a joke. He was merely stating what he and his fellow faux liberals believe: the military is a bunch of rubes.--

Do you really believe that? He starts his speech with several one-liners, including how the president used to live in Texas, "[...] but now lives in a state of denial. You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." The word "us" is left out of the last sentence, which should have been: "If you don't, you get US stuck in Iraq." Keeping in line with his other jabs at Bush.

--And given the fact it took him days to come up with the "botched joke" excuse, something tells me it wasn't really a joke.--

He made his statement the VERY NEXT DAY!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226490,00.html

You state it wasn't a botched joke because "something tells you"? Come on, you're smarter than that.

--Liberalism from a political standpoint supports the rights of the individual over the government. Faux liberalism supports the power of the government over the rights of the individual. Sounds quite a bit like the bunch running things in Washington, doesn't it?--

I appreciate you answering my question. So your stance is that "real" liberalism is "classical liberalism" as opposed to "social liberalism"?
Does this mean you're a Libertarian?

So, how do you feel about the legislation of morality? Abortion? Church and State seperation? The draft?

--I haven't filtered you yet.--

I wasn't expecting you to filter me.

--Checkmate. You lost. Badly.--

How so?

--:-) --

8-/

TLindaman said...

faldon has left a new comment on your post "My Response to the House and Senate":

It's merely a way of cautioning Bush to find his OWN way to effect the withdrawal with some dignity, that way Bush can also take some credit. What would you rather they do?


I would prefer they do something that actually MEAN something. A non-binding resolution doesn't commit anyone to do anything. I said as much in my original post. As far as "taking credit" they can't do that based on the now-failed non-binding resolution. It's clear why it was done: to provide political cover for reelection. They could "make a statement" to get the anti-war vote while still appearing to "support the troops." It's a simple political play.


And she got the bills through. The Democrats did as they promised. If Bush vetos them or the Republicans decide to filibuster, that doesn't change the fact that the DEMOCRATS followed through. It's up to the GOP now to do the right thing. The bills are passed and moving through. They're doing their job.


Ummm...getting them through is not what Pelosi promised. And, of course, she failed, which is why she had to keep fudging with the 100 hour promise by excluding necessary elements to making law.


Whether you go by an "active time spent" clock or a "session clock" they still got everything done within 100 hours. You're not one of those people that honestly felt she meant 100 continous hours, right? In the history of politics I don't recall "First 100 hours" EVER being referred to anything but working hours on the floor.


I'm going by what Pelosi said. She said everything would be done within the first 100 hours, not the first 100 hours that were convenient for the House. Maybe if she spent less time going to coronation events and more time working, she'd be able to make a legitimate claim to meeting the 100 hours.


Honestly, I can understand having legitimate beefs with some of these politicians, but the "100 hour" thing is just silly. They got the bills passed within 100 hours, so now it's an issue of them not passing them while off the clock? Come on. They got them through fast.

They didn't get the bills passed within the first 100 hours, though. And it's the fact that Pelosi set the standard and then lied about it that was the point of my argument.

But it seems to me that you're willing to excuse dishonesty if it benefits you. I'm not. Dishonesty is dishonesty, and Pelosi and company are more than willing to twist the facts to get ahead.

Gee, isn't that what your side accuses Republicans of all the time? :-)

Mr. Hoyer made it clear from the beginning that not every week would be a five-day work week. Even the quote people are drawing this 5-day work week was, "We'll be working almost every day in January, starting with the 4th." He said ALMOST. Congress was never scheduled to be voting on that day, anyway. Besides, Rep. John Boehner, the Republican Minority Leader in the House of Representatives put in the request for the day off. And in the interest of comity, Democrats granted it.


Thank you for proving me right. Hoyer said the House would go back to working 5 days a week, not 4 days due to a BCS game. And it doesn't matter who requested it, the Democrats were in power at the time and could have refused. They didn't, thus, they're guilty of breaking their promise within the first 100 hours of taking power.

--But you're upset over me pointing out the truth, apparently...--

What truth?


The truth that the Democrats lied to get into power and have lied since taking power. The fact you've been exposed as someone who lets partisanship rule over truth is evident.

--The war on Iraq has not increased terrorism worldwide because the terrorists were already there. Now, they're acting on their orders.--

And why are they acting on their orders?

Because they've been activated by their leadership. Gee, if they weren't terrorists before, how could they get orders to act? :-)

That's another point of your post destroyed by common sense.


--Hard to make the claim that we're creating new terrorists when the terrorists were already out there. But that's the beauty of your side's argument: it can't be proven or disproven.--

Well, what else can the war on terrorism be proven by, by anything other than... terrorism?


Still not getting the point, I see. Listen, it's simple. You've made a point that cannot be proven, so you're stating it on blind faith. I'd welcome any proof you have, such as a census, that proves we're creating more terrorism. But you'd be hard-pressed to find such evidence because it simply doesn't exist.

And what's the Republicans' plan been, Tom? Have a half-hearted battle in Afghanistan then go into a full-blown war with Iraq? The terrorists that attacked us weren't from Iraq, you know that.

Yes, but Iraq's connections to terrorism are well-known and proven. You have to ignore that established fact in order to justify your position, which weakens your position.


Besides, how can you write up a step-by-step plan to fight a war against an idea or a belief?


The Democrats seem to think there can be. After all, they keep saying Bush is doing everything wrong. :-)


National Security is a government initiative that requires network of agencies. The Republican Party believes in SMALL government, so how can they truly be in favor of that?


Because Republicans believe in providing for the common defense. And Democrats these days don't.

Geez, you're making this easy. :-)

Durbin said: "If I read this to you and did not tell you it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings."

He said AMERICANS, not soldiers. Many of the people who commited those crimes weren't soldiers. Tell me, Thomas: If the torture techniques were described to you without specifying who, where, or when they happened... would you think it was Americans that did it? Durbin's point was clear: Americans are NOT supposed to act that way, because that's NOT who we are. Durbin's only crime was pulling a Godwin.


Ummm...are American citizens guarding the prisoners at Gitmo? No. IT'S SOLDIERS!

And you're excusing Durbin's comments because of who made them, not because they're accurate. Show me even one incident where the troops at Gitmo are acting like Nazis. Otherwise, Durbin's lying about the troops.

--John Kerry calls our troops in Iraq stupid.--

You still believe that? Listen to the entire speech he made and you will see that he was referring to the President and not troops. He never mentioned troops or soldiers but did mention the President in the immediately preceding line. He flubbed the line which was meant to be "You get US stuck in Iraq."

You ignored my post about that. Typical.

--John Murtha accused soldiers of killing civillians,--

Murtha said that sources within the military told HIM that an internal investigation showed that that soldiers killed civilians. Murtha also said: "It's an isolated incident. But that's why it's so important to get it out in the open and get the punishment at the appropriate places." Murtha limited his criticisms to those involved in the incident and the reported cover-up.

So because he did a mea culpa, it elimiates his previous statement that soldiers are killing civillians BEFORE THEY WERE EVEN TRIED?

--as John Kerry also did.--

And soldiers DIDN'T kill civilians in Vietnam? Kerry didn't seperate himself from them. He made those statements because he was trying to end that awful war.


And he did nothing to stop them, in spite of the fact he was allegedly amongst them. The UCMJ kinda frowns on that.

--And those are just the liberals in government.--

And you honestly think Republicans haven't attacked soldiers just because of their political affilitation? McCain?

McCain wasn't attacked because of his military service. And you're dodging the point, which is that I produced proof of what I said, which is more than what you have.

--DailyKos, I'm sure, has plenty of opinions on the troops that are just as negative, if not worse.--

And you honestly feel armchair Republican bloggers don't trash vets if their political affiliation is in opposition of theirs?
They accused Kerry of self-inflicting his war wounds, for god's sake!

Dodging the point again. And the difference is that the Swift Boat Vets were RIGHT. :-)

So far all I'm seeing is a disdain for people who CLAIM to be "soldiers" but who aren't worthy of wearing the uniform.
The marines I know are quite ashamed of what happened at Gitmo (strangely, many of them don't follow politics, and don't seem to be aware that many of them weren't soldiers).

Ah, the "Marines you know" card. That's no different than a racist saying, "I can't be racist because I have black friends."

By the way, you're wrong about Gitmo. They aren't letting civillians guard the prisoners. It's all military, considering Gitmo is a MILITARY INSTALLATION!

Keep throwing these softballs at me. I love being able to knock them out of the park. :-)

--William Jefferson. Hillary Clinton. Harry Reid. John Kerry. Barack Obama. Nancy Pelosi. John Murtha. Those are names you should recognize because they're all prominent Democrats who have been suspected of illegal activity or activity that is against the Congressional Ethics rules. And not one of them is bottom of the barrel, like you've had to scrape to come up with the list of Republicans you did.--

My list were people who have been convicted or have confessed, not "suspected." You've got me on William Jefferson's lying about a BJ, yes.

And your list was mostly Republicans few people have heard of. My list was comprised of better-known Democrats.

By the way, William Jefferson was the one who was caught with $90,000 in his freezer. Do try to keep up. :-)

--1) It's a volunteer military. 2) I'd follow orders, which is what your side claims is the problem. 3) If you want to change things in the military, wouldn't you be obligated to go and enlist? 4) You've made the illogical mistake of linking support of the war effort with being required to serve. If that was the case, you would have to have served during Clinton's Administration to avoid being a hypocrite. Until you prove otherwise, you're a hypocrite.--

No, because I never claimed I would join. You said you would when the Dems become honest.

Not quite. But please continue to misquote me to try to prop up your poor excuse for an argument. :-)

Besides, I've already proven time and time again that, even by your standards, I don't have to enlist anytime soon. :-)

--For one, you're not quoting his letter accurately. He wrote, and I quote, "I loathe the military."--

Here is the ENTIRE LETTER:

I've seen the entire letter, and it's been misquoted repeatedly by your side to excuse Clinton. By the way, I don't see you defending Clinton's actions, which further support my point. Thank you for admitting I was right about Clinton's attitudes about the military. :-)

What letter are you referring to where he says "I loathe the military"? Do you have a link to this other letter?

The original letter stated, "I loathe the military." Since then, the Clintonites have tried to change history by altering the orignal letter.

By the way, your link isn't the original letter. They didn't have PBS or the Internet back then. Thank you for proving me right. :-)

--And if that wasn't good enough for you, you should check out how shabbily he and his wife treated the military during his Presidency. They had an active distrust of the military and other authority figures.--

In what way?

Gee, sending soldiers into harm's way with orders not to shoot until shot upon...replacing on-the-ground intelligence with satelites...showing an active disdain for the soliders whose job it was to protect the President from the White House to Marine 1, and vice versa...

This is all common knowledge. That's why you have to feign ignorance of it.

--Sorry, but you've been busted again.--

You've provided a quote without a citation, and made a sweeping statement without specifics. I don't see how that's busting someone.

I posted a quote with attribution from the beginning, and just posted the specifics you requested. You're busted.

By the way, you're guilty of the same thing you accused me of doing, and you're still doing it. :-)

--Sorry, but that's a wrong answer. Bush didn't cut benefits.--

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2153-2003Jun16?language=printer

http://inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=465_0_2_0_C

The Constitution states Congress spends money, not the President.

And let's see the actual numbers. In Washingtonspeak, a cut is a reduction to proposed increases. Show me the real cuts and I'll concede the point. But you can't.

--That's a lie the faux left keeps throwing out there as a means to divert attention away from their own disdain for the military.--

How is opposing the war in Iraq, and blasting people who aren't behaving in a military manner, disdaining the military?

Opposing the war in Iraq based on lies is one way, and that's what the Democrats have done and continue to do. As far as not acting in a military manner, Kerry and Murtha have that experience in spades.

--You'd prefer the Clinton method and lying to the ROTC? LOL--

He gave up the ROTC to put himself up for the draft. He was lucky, his name didn't come up.
Regardless, he at least had the guts to protest the war.
It's like people who trash John Kerry, who fought in Vietnam AND protested the war.
Bush did neither. Neither did Cheney. If they were vocally opposed to the Vietnam war,
I wouldn't have cared if they evaded it, no matter how they did it.

More historical revision. Clinton said he would report to the ROTC and then didn't. No explanation, no attempt to provide an explanation, nothing but a lie.

And funny how Clinton didn't have the "guts" to protest the war until he was overseas. :-)


--It's called "common sense."--

It's common sense to use a joke to respond to not providing armor?

Another faux liberal lie. Armor was provided from the get-go. Easily proven if you did your homework instead of parroting talking points.

--Try it sometime.--

Ad Hominem. I never accused you of not using common sense. Are you going to back that up?

I already did, and you've done plenty of ad hominem attacks on me and others. What's your excuse? :-)

--Murtha wasn't a general.--

That was an error on my part, yes. I meant to type Colonel and General.


Fine. That's one you finally got right.

--And Schwartzkopf was not called a traitor.--

People who were against W's war in Iraq have been called traitors for years. Schwarzkopf was against it.

That's nice, but you didn't really post proof that Schwartzkopf was called a traitor. What was that you said about making blanket statements without proof? :-)

--Two more lies to add to the pile...--

As far as Murtha being a general: That was an typographical error, not a lie. Why would I lie about something that could easily be refuted by a link to wikipedia? Do you think I could slip something like that past YOU? Joe Schmoe, maybe.

You've been lying about the Democrats since your initial posting, so why shouldn't I assume you lied about Murtha's military rank?

--I've read the script. What Kerry said wasn't a joke. He was merely stating what he and his fellow faux liberals believe: the military is a bunch of rubes.--

Do you really believe that? He starts his speech with several one-liners, including how the president used to live in Texas, "[...] but now lives in a state of denial. You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." The word "us" is left out of the last sentence, which should have been: "If you don't, you get US stuck in Iraq." Keeping in line with his other jabs at Bush.

More lies. The original text of the speech had a LOT more missing than just the "us." In fact, the statement as made bears little resemblance to the script.

And let's not overlook the fact that he was at a rally amongst Democrats. When we're around people we're comfortable with, we drop some of the societal expectations put on us and act more openly. Kerry was merely stating what he and his fellow Democrats believe to a group of true believers.

Sorry, but I don't buy the "botched joke" line because, once again, I've done my homework.

--And given the fact it took him days to come up with the "botched joke" excuse, something tells me it wasn't really a joke.--

He made his statement the VERY NEXT DAY!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226490,00.html

You state it wasn't a botched joke because "something tells you"? Come on, you're smarter than that.

Wrong. His immediate statement said he would not apologize to the Bush Administration for prosecuting the war, but made no reference to the troops. That didn't come until day 2 or 3.

And as I've shown above, my feelings are based in far more than just any feelings I have against Kerry.

--Liberalism from a political standpoint supports the rights of the individual over the government. Faux liberalism supports the power of the government over the rights of the individual. Sounds quite a bit like the bunch running things in Washington, doesn't it?--

I appreciate you answering my question. So your stance is that "real" liberalism is "classical liberalism" as opposed to "social liberalism"?
Does this mean you're a Libertarian?

I am a former Libertarian who left the party after a distinct ideological shift that I didn't agree with. I am a classic liberal, or a "small-L libertarian" if you'd prefer.

My distinction is based on liberalism in thought, not necessarily in practice. The so-called "progressives" are as far away from liberalism as you can get, but they'll still take some pride at being called a liberal because they think it gives them a level of moral superiority.

But it's my point that one cannot distort the original ideas of liberalism to include more statist elements and still be a liberal, thus the "faux liberal" tag.

So, how do you feel about the legislation of morality? Abortion? Church and State seperation? The draft?

Laws in and of themselves are a form of the legislation of morality. If it's done to protect society from a larger threat, like murder or theft, I have no problem with it. If it's done against actions that really have no bearing on society as a whole, like pot or sex between adults, I oppose it.

Abortion should be a state issue. The fed has no real say in it from a Constitutional standpoint. I consider myself pro-life, but with an understanding that my opinion is mine and isn't the law of the land. I'm more of an advocate of reducing the number of abortions through persuading society to take up a higher standard than I am of letting government get its hands in the matter.

I am opposed to a draft, mainly because I don't feel it's necessary. We have a lot of military folks cooling their heels in places where we no longer need a military presence. To institute a draft when we have that condition is stupid.

From an ideological standpoint, I'm opposed to the draft because it forces people to do something that may be against their will. Persuasion works better, I've found, than force. What some people will do when drafted is rebel, which hurts morale and cohesiveness. And that, ultimately, hurts any war effort.

The separation of church and state isn't a Constitutional concept. I firmly believe people of faith can serve in the government, and that the government shouldn't get involved in religion. And, no, supporting faith-based organizations isn't the same as promoting a religion, so the First Amendment isn't threatened. The reason behind the support, and my support for that matter, of faith-based initiatives is because they have proven to be effective and efficient. If we really want to help people, we need both.

--I haven't filtered you yet.--

I wasn't expecting you to filter me.

That WAS your implication in the statement you made...

--Checkmate. You lost. Badly.--

How so?

See above. :-)

faldon said...

--I would prefer they do something that actually MEAN something. A non-binding resolution doesn't commit anyone to do anything. I said as much in my original post. As far as "taking credit" they can't do that based on the now-failed non-binding resolution. It's clear why it was done: to provide political cover for reelection. They could "make a statement" to get the anti-war vote while still appearing to "support the troops." It's a simple political play.--

Would you prefer impeachment? As much as I dislike Bush, I don't want that. I'd rather they made a symbolic gesture.


--Ummm...getting them through is not what Pelosi promised. And, of course, she failed, which is why she had to keep fudging with the 100 hour promise by excluding necessary elements to making law.--

But she got the bills through well within the 100 hour clock. Are you saying she promised to make them into LAW within 100 hours? I'll need the exact quote for that.

--I'm going by what Pelosi said. She said everything would be done within the first 100 hours, not the first 100 hours that were convenient for the House. Maybe if she spent less time going to coronation events and more time working, she'd be able to make a legitimate claim to meeting the 100 hours. They didn't get the bills passed within the first 100 hours, though. And it's the fact that Pelosi set the standard and then lied about it that was the point of my argument.--

Pelosi was using an "active time spent" clock. Critics wanted her to use a real time clock (congress in session). Either way, they made it in time.

--But it seems to me that you're willing to excuse dishonesty if it benefits you. I'm not. Dishonesty is dishonesty, and Pelosi and company are more than willing to twist the facts to get ahead.--

How is it dishonest? Again, I don't know of any quote of her saying the bills would be made into LAW within 100 hours.

--Thank you for proving me right. Hoyer said the House would go back to working 5 days a week, not 4 days due to a BCS game. And it doesn't matter who requested it, the Democrats were in power at the time and could have refused. They didn't, thus, they're guilty of breaking their promise within the first 100 hours of taking power.--

He said they would be working ALMOST every day, not every day. And don't forget, the main reason the GOP request Monday off, was so they could read the legislation and think about what they would say in the context of the new rules just passed for this term. They basically, in an effort of bipartisanship, gave the GOP a day to regroup to debate and argue against the first 100 hours of legislation.

--The truth that the Democrats lied to get into power--

How did they lie to get into power?

--and have lied since taking power. The fact you've been exposed as someone who lets partisanship rule over truth is evident.--

I still haven't seen any dishonesty here. Hoyer never said they would be working every day. He said "almost" every day. And I don't know of any quote of Pelosi saying the bills would be passed into law within the first 100 hours.

--And why are they acting on their orders? Because they've been activated by their leadership. Gee, if they weren't terrorists before, how could they get orders to act? :-) That's another point of your post destroyed by common sense.--

And why are they being activated by their leadership?

--Still not getting the point, I see. Listen, it's simple. You've made a point that cannot be proven, so you're stating it on blind faith. I'd welcome any proof you have, such as a census, that proves we're creating more terrorism. But you'd be hard-pressed to find such evidence because it simply doesn't exist.--

And what about the IISS's statements on the Al Qaeda recruitment boosts?

--Yes, but Iraq's connections to terrorism are well-known and proven. You have to ignore that established fact in order to justify your position, which weakens your position.--

But was it enough to justify concentrating there rather than Afghanistan?

--The Democrats seem to think there can be. After all, they keep saying Bush is doing everything wrong. :-)--

I think he's doing SOME things wrong, but not everything.

I'm not one of those tin foil hat people that think Bush went to war in Iraq for oil or rebuilding contracts as his motivation.

--Because Republicans believe in providing for the common defense. And Democrats these days don't. Geez, you're making this easy. :-)--

Democrats don't care for the common defense? What about increased cargo inspection? Focusing more on Afghanistan?

--Ummm...are American citizens guarding the prisoners at Gitmo? No. IT'S SOLDIERS!--

There's also contract interrogators there.

--And you're excusing Durbin's comments because of who made them, not because they're accurate. Show me even one incident where the troops at Gitmo are acting like Nazis. Otherwise, Durbin's lying about the troops.--

Detainees were exposed to extreme heat and cold, lying in isolation until they were laying in their own feces. No, it's not genocide. But it is torture.

--You ignored my post about that. Typical.--

Ignored what post? Typical of what?

--So because he did a mea culpa, it elimiates his previous statement that soldiers are killing civillians BEFORE THEY WERE EVEN TRIED?--

He was quoting the sources.

--And he did nothing to stop them, in spite of the fact he was allegedly amongst them. The UCMJ kinda frowns on that.--

And how is that relevant? We were talking about John Kerry saying that soldiers (including himself) killed civilians, not about whether he did anything to stop them.

--McCain wasn't attacked because of his military service.--

You didn't see the political ads in 2000 trying to smear his war record?
Did the DNC try to smear Bob Dole's war record in campaign ads?

--And you're dodging the point, which is that I produced proof of what I said, which is more than what you have.--

Your proof is that Murtha and Kerry frown on war atrocities = "Hating our troops"?

--Dodging the point again.--

Your proof that "Democrats hate the troops" because you saw some posts on DailyKos?

--And the difference is that the Swift Boat Vets were RIGHT. :-)--

Really? You keep speaking of evidence and proof. Where's the proof he self-inflicted his war wounds?

--Ah, the "Marines you know" card. That's no different than a racist saying, "I can't be racist because I have black friends."--

Are you saying *I* hate soldiers now?

--By the way, you're wrong about Gitmo. They aren't letting civillians guard the prisoners. It's all military, considering Gitmo is a MILITARY INSTALLATION! Keep throwing these softballs at me. I love being able to knock them out of the park. :-)--

Again, there were also contract interrogators.

--And your list was mostly Republicans few people have heard of. My list was comprised of better-known Democrats.--

I could list the top GOP, but I'm not one of those people that says things like "Bush went AWOL and paid for his mistress's abortion back when it was illegal." That's because I'm going by convictions, not suspicions.

--By the way, William Jefferson was the one who was caught with $90,000 in his freezer.--

Ah, THAT WJ. Sure, if he's convicted, lock the bum up. No argument there.

--Do try to keep up. :-)--

And how was I supposed to know which WJ you were referring to? Mind reading?
And as far as your condescending comment: Are you going to back it up with actions?

--Not quite. But please continue to misquote me to try to prop up your poor excuse for an argument. :-) Besides, I've already proven time and time again that, even by your standards, I don't have to enlist anytime soon. :-)--

Nor will people waiting on honest GOPers.

--I've seen the entire letter, and it's been misquoted repeatedly by your side to excuse Clinton. By the way, I don't see you defending Clinton's actions, which further support my point.--

Defending WHAT actions? You stated he said he loathed the military. I have yet to see any evidence of that.

--Thank you for admitting I was right about Clinton's attitudes about the military. :-)--

Tom, it seems like all you ever do is say "I'm right" over and over again and tack on passive-aggressive smileys, even when you're wrong, even when people aren't doing thing like that to you, and even when they easily COULD do that to you. How do you expect to be respected if that's your solution to everything? I know you play that game in chatrooms. You like baiting people with a condscending tone and personal attacks to smokescreen the issues. So what do you want? Would you rather just not talk to anybody and prefer to simply be left to post your opinions on your blog in peace?

--The original letter stated, "I loathe the military." Since then, the Clintonites have tried to change history by altering the orignal letter. By the way, your link isn't the original letter. They didn't have PBS or the Internet back then. Thank you for proving me right. :-)--

You stated earlier about not making statements on blind faith without evidence. Where is the evidence that the original letter stated "I loathe the military"?

--Gee, sending soldiers into harm's way with orders not to shoot until shot upon...--

Those are common orders. Many troops in harm's way in Iraq are under orders like that right now.

--replacing on-the-ground intelligence with satelites...--

But the intel committees of both the House and Senate from both parties embraced high tech intelligence. They were screaming for it after the Gulf War.

--showing an active disdain for the soliders whose job it was to protect the President from the White House to Marine 1, and vice versa.--

He did? This isn't about the "back-turning soldier", is it?

--This is all common knowledge. That's why you have to feign ignorance of it.--

I'm merely asking for a citation.

--I posted a quote with attribution from the beginning, and just posted the specifics you requested. You're busted.--

I don't see any evidence of Clinton stating "I loathe the military". You just keep saying he wrote it. When shown evidence to the contrary, you say it was fabricated. When asked for evidence that it was fabricated, you just keep saying he wrote it.

--By the way, you're guilty of the same thing you accused me of doing, and you're still doing it. :-)--

Where?

--The Constitution states Congress spends money, not the President.--

A GOP majority Congress that followed what the President requested.

--And let's see the actual numbers. In Washingtonspeak, a cut is a reduction to proposed increases. Show me the real cuts and I'll concede the point. But you can't.--

You think they can't roll back benefits? They tried that with "imminent danger pay" and "family seperation pay", and only backed down from that after public outcry.

--Opposing the war in Iraq based on lies is one way, and that's what the Democrats have done and continue to do.--

Based on what lies?

--As far as not acting in a military manner, Kerry and Murtha have that experience in spades.--

Because they were critical of atrocities?

--More historical revision. Clinton said he would report to the ROTC and then didn't. No explanation, no attempt to provide an explanation, nothing but a lie.--

What historical revision? He was going to join the ROTC to avoid the draft, but decided not to.

--And funny how Clinton didn't have the "guts" to protest the war until he was overseas. :-)--

England would've granted him immunity?

--Another faux liberal lie. Armor was provided from the get-go. Easily proven if you did your homework instead of parroting talking points.--

Not all of them had body armor. And some was outdated. Body armor has an expiration date. Some was from the Vietnam era.

--I already did,--

Where?

--and you've done plenty of ad hominem attacks on me and others. What's your excuse? :-)--

Where? The worst I've done is ask you questions.

--Fine. That's one you finally got right.--

You really DON'T want to talk, do you? Why even have a comment section? Let me guess "Because it's fun to show how you faux liberals are always lying! :-)"?

--That's nice, but you didn't really post proof that Schwartzkopf was called a traitor. What was that you said about making blanket statements without proof? :-)--

If they're stating people who are against the war are traitors, then they're calling HIM a traitor. (By the way, in this case I'm not referring to GOP politicians, I'm referring to RW bloggers.)

--You've been lying about the Democrats since your initial posting, so why shouldn't I assume you lied about Murtha's military rank?--

Are you accusing me of LYING now? I haven't accused you of lying when many opportunities to do so have presented itself.

--More lies. The original text of the speech had a LOT more missing than just the "us." In fact, the statement as made bears little resemblance to the script.--

So you're saying Kerry WASN'T talking about Bush right before the education comment? What's the original text?

--And let's not overlook the fact that he was at a rally amongst Democrats. When we're around people we're comfortable with, we drop some of the societal expectations put on us and act more openly. Kerry was merely stating what he and his fellow Democrats believe to a group of true believers. Sorry, but I don't buy the "botched joke" line because, once again, I've done my homework.--

You honestly believe that? You actually think he deliberately called the troops in Iraq stupid? You honestly believe that?

--Wrong. His immediate statement said he would not apologize to the Bush Administration for prosecuting the war, but made no reference to the troops. That didn't come until day 2 or 3.--

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226490,00.html

Kerry: "My statement YESTERDAY, and the White House knows this full-well, was a BOTCHED JOKE about the president and the president's people and not about the TROOPS."

Are you saying Fox News just made up this quote?

--And as I've shown above, my feelings are based in far more than just any feelings I have against Kerry.--

Then what are they based on?

--I am a former Libertarian who left the party after a distinct ideological shift that I didn't agree with.--

What do you feel happened with the Libertarians?

--I am a classic liberal, or a "small-L libertarian" if you'd prefer. My distinction is based on liberalism in thought, not necessarily in practice. The so-called "progressives" are as far away from liberalism as you can get, but they'll still take some pride at being called a liberal because they think it gives them a level of moral superiority. But it's my point that one cannot distort the original ideas of liberalism to include more statist elements and still be a liberal, thus the "faux liberal" tag.--

I see. It would appear you wouldn't care for either party. Why do you feel Conservatives are closer to your classic liberal leanings than the "faux left"?

Just to let you know, I'm not going to crow about the DNC. After the retooling after Mondale's defeat, the Dems aren't truly liberal from my point of view, either. They're closer than the GOP, but not by much.

My #1 choice of the Democrats is Dennis Kucinich. I'm curious how you feel about him.

And how about the Green Party?

--Laws in and of themselves are a form of the legislation of morality. If it's done to protect society from a larger threat, like murder or theft, I have no problem with it. If it's done against actions that really have no bearing on society as a whole, like pot or sex between adults, I oppose it.

Abortion should be a state issue. The fed has no real say in it from a Constitutional standpoint. I consider myself pro-life, but with an understanding that my opinion is mine and isn't the law of the land. I'm more of an advocate of reducing the number of abortions through persuading society to take up a higher standard than I am of letting government get its hands in the matter.

I am opposed to a draft, mainly because I don't feel it's necessary. We have a lot of military folks cooling their heels in places where we no longer need a military presence. To institute a draft when we have that condition is stupid.

From an ideological standpoint, I'm opposed to the draft because it forces people to do something that may be against their will. Persuasion works better, I've found, than force. What some people will do when drafted is rebel, which hurts morale and cohesiveness. And that, ultimately, hurts any war effort.--

Everything you've said here, I either agree with 100%, or at least respect.

--The separation of church and state isn't a Constitutional concept. I firmly believe people of faith can serve in the government, and that the government shouldn't get involved in religion.--

Agreed.

--And, no, supporting faith-based organizations isn't the same as promoting a religion, so the First Amendment isn't threatened. The reason behind the support, and my support for that matter, of faith-based initiatives is because they have proven to be effective and efficient. If we really want to help people, we need both.--

I feel it's a slippery slope, but I respect your opinion on that.

--That WAS your implication in the statement you made...--

No, I don't expect you to filter here (aside from trollers and spam, of course). There's not enough opposition yet. Maybe when your writings make you more famous.

--See above. :-) --

Oh, come now Tom. Show me where I've been unreasonable with you.

TLindaman said...

faldon said...
--I would prefer they do something that actually MEAN something. A non-binding resolution doesn't commit anyone to do anything. I said as much in my original post. As far as "taking credit" they can't do that based on the now-failed non-binding resolution. It's clear why it was done: to provide political cover for reelection. They could "make a statement" to get the anti-war vote while still appearing to "support the troops." It's a simple political play.--

Would you prefer impeachment? As much as I dislike Bush, I don't want that. I'd rather they made a symbolic gesture.


What could they impeach Bush over? "Lying" about the war (which, by the way, they supported with their votes)? "Doctoring intelligence" (which they had access to when they made their initial vote)?

During the Clinton impeachment, we heard from Democrats all about the importance of not impeaching just for political reasons. Now, Democrats support doing just that.


--Ummm...getting them through is not what Pelosi promised. And, of course, she failed, which is why she had to keep fudging with the 100 hour promise by excluding necessary elements to making law.--

But she got the bills through well within the 100 hour clock. Are you saying she promised to make them into LAW within 100 hours? I'll need the exact quote for that.


Ummm... that's what "pass" means in this context. She didn't say "we're going to bring up these bills for a vote in the first 100 hours." She said they would be PASSED.

--I'm going by what Pelosi said. She said everything would be done within the first 100 hours, not the first 100 hours that were convenient for the House. Maybe if she spent less time going to coronation events and more time working, she'd be able to make a legitimate claim to meeting the 100 hours. They didn't get the bills passed within the first 100 hours, though. And it's the fact that Pelosi set the standard and then lied about it that was the point of my argument.--

Pelosi was using an "active time spent" clock. Critics wanted her to use a real time clock (congress in session). Either way, they made it in time.


No. Pelosi was using a clock that took out time for the procedural side of proposing bills. That's still time that has to be factored into the introduction and voting on every bill. And that's time Pelosi didn't include in her accounting, thus, she's intellectually dishonest.

--But it seems to me that you're willing to excuse dishonesty if it benefits you. I'm not. Dishonesty is dishonesty, and Pelosi and company are more than willing to twist the facts to get ahead.--

How is it dishonest? Again, I don't know of any quote of her saying the bills would be made into LAW within 100 hours.

Again, she said they would be passed. They weren't. And they went past the first 100 hours. That's dishonesty.

--Thank you for proving me right. Hoyer said the House would go back to working 5 days a week, not 4 days due to a BCS game. And it doesn't matter who requested it, the Democrats were in power at the time and could have refused. They didn't, thus, they're guilty of breaking their promise within the first 100 hours of taking power.--

He said they would be working ALMOST every day, not every day. And don't forget, the main reason the GOP request Monday off, was so they could read the legislation and think about what they would say in the context of the new rules just passed for this term. They basically, in an effort of bipartisanship, gave the GOP a day to regroup to debate and argue against the first 100 hours of legislation.

Nope. Hoyer said the House would go back to working 5 days a week. And unless they had a special session on Saturday of that week, which I doubt, they worked 4 days.

And by your own admission, the House Democrats broke their word and, thus, were intellectually dishonest.

--The truth that the Democrats lied to get into power--

How did they lie to get into power?


The 100 hours talk, for one. Didn't happen.

Their stated desire to open up bipartisanship in debating bills for another. Didn't happen.

Pelosi's promise to "drain the swamp" of corruption for another. Didn't happen.

--and have lied since taking power. The fact you've been exposed as someone who lets partisanship rule over truth is evident.--

I still haven't seen any dishonesty here. Hoyer never said they would be working every day. He said "almost" every day. And I don't know of any quote of Pelosi saying the bills would be passed into law within the first 100 hours.


Ah, but Hoyer DID say they would be going back to working 5 days a week. It's out there, as are Pelosi's promises.

--And why are they acting on their orders? Because they've been activated by their leadership. Gee, if they weren't terrorists before, how could they get orders to act? :-) That's another point of your post destroyed by common sense.--

And why are they being activated by their leadership?

Because they're trying to get us to stop fighting. We didn't create them; they were already there and waiting for the call. Blaming us for the actions of terrorist leaders before we started the war on terrorism is intellectually dishonest.

--Still not getting the point, I see. Listen, it's simple. You've made a point that cannot be proven, so you're stating it on blind faith. I'd welcome any proof you have, such as a census, that proves we're creating more terrorism. But you'd be hard-pressed to find such evidence because it simply doesn't exist.--

And what about the IISS's statements on the Al Qaeda recruitment boosts?

Prove to me that the IISS did a census of terrorists and I'll concede the point.

--Yes, but Iraq's connections to terrorism are well-known and proven. You have to ignore that established fact in order to justify your position, which weakens your position.--

But was it enough to justify concentrating there rather than Afghanistan?

Yes it was. Iraq under Saddam had a track record of funding and supporting terrorism. If we're fighting a war against terrorism, shouldn't we go after all of the connections, not just the politically expedient ones?

--The Democrats seem to think there can be. After all, they keep saying Bush is doing everything wrong. :-)--

I think he's doing SOME things wrong, but not everything.

I'm not one of those tin foil hat people that think Bush went to war in Iraq for oil or rebuilding contracts as his motivation.


Then, you're in the minority.

--Because Republicans believe in providing for the common defense. And Democrats these days don't. Geez, you're making this easy. :-)--

Democrats don't care for the common defense? What about increased cargo inspection? Focusing more on Afghanistan?

John Murtha's call for a "slow bleed" undercuts your arguments.

John Kerry saying Iraq was the "wrong war, wrong time" undercuts your arguments.

I could go on, but those are two pretty big things to overcome. I wouldn't want to be accused of piling on. :-)

--Ummm...are American citizens guarding the prisoners at Gitmo? No. IT'S SOLDIERS!--

There's also contract interrogators there.

Of course, that's not what Durbin said, but please continue to evade the exact quote. :-)

--And you're excusing Durbin's comments because of who made them, not because they're accurate. Show me even one incident where the troops at Gitmo are acting like Nazis. Otherwise, Durbin's lying about the troops.--

Detainees were exposed to extreme heat and cold, lying in isolation until they were laying in their own feces. No, it's not genocide. But it is torture.

Not at Gitmo. And not one of them was even remotely close to what the Nazis did to prisoners.

--You ignored my post about that. Typical.--

Ignored what post? Typical of what?

--So because he did a mea culpa, it elimiates his previous statement that soldiers are killing civillians BEFORE THEY WERE EVEN TRIED?--

He was quoting the sources.

No. He was convicting them of crimes before they had even the first semblence of a trial.

--And he did nothing to stop them, in spite of the fact he was allegedly amongst them. The UCMJ kinda frowns on that.--

And how is that relevant? We were talking about John Kerry saying that soldiers (including himself) killed civilians, not about whether he did anything to stop them.

It's relevant because if a soldier sees a crime being committed by a fellow soldier, he or she has to report it up the chain of command. Kerry doesn't appear to have done that. So, either he's guilty of dereliction of duty or he's lying about what he saw.

--McCain wasn't attacked because of his military service.--

You didn't see the political ads in 2000 trying to smear his war record?

Nope. I didn't see one ad where McCain's military service was attacked.

Did the DNC try to smear Bob Dole's war record in campaign ads?

No. They had their field operatives make fun of his war injuries, just like they did to Bob Kerrey.

--And you're dodging the point, which is that I produced proof of what I said, which is more than what you have.--

Your proof is that Murtha and Kerry frown on war atrocities = "Hating our troops"?

No. Falsely accusing them of war attrocities makes them troop haters. See, they're not really going after the attrocities; they're attacking the troops directly without qualification of their statements.

--Dodging the point again.--

Your proof that "Democrats hate the troops" because you saw some posts on DailyKos?

I saw posts there, I've seen actions taken by the Democrats in Washington. I've seen the faux left in anti-war protests malign and condone murder of troops. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the troops.

--And the difference is that the Swift Boat Vets were RIGHT. :-)--

Really? You keep speaking of evidence and proof. Where's the proof he self-inflicted his war wounds?

The doctor who treated Kerry's injuries wasn't qualified enough? LOL

--Ah, the "Marines you know" card. That's no different than a racist saying, "I can't be racist because I have black friends."--

Are you saying *I* hate soldiers now?

You keep defending and excusing those who do, so you tell me. :-)

--By the way, you're wrong about Gitmo. They aren't letting civillians guard the prisoners. It's all military, considering Gitmo is a MILITARY INSTALLATION! Keep throwing these softballs at me. I love being able to knock them out of the park. :-)--

Again, there were also contract interrogators.

And again, not at Gitmo.

--And your list was mostly Republicans few people have heard of. My list was comprised of better-known Democrats.--

I could list the top GOP, but I'm not one of those people that says things like "Bush went AWOL and paid for his mistress's abortion back when it was illegal." That's because I'm going by convictions, not suspicions.


And you're having to reach waaaaaaaay back to get a lot of no-names to fill up that list. On the other hand, I've come up with big name Democrats who should be undergoing investigations as we speak.

--By the way, William Jefferson was the one who was caught with $90,000 in his freezer.--

Ah, THAT WJ. Sure, if he's convicted, lock the bum up. No argument there.

Pelosi doesn't seem to be too quick on that. She asked him to resign and he refused...and she let it go.

--Do try to keep up. :-)--

And how was I supposed to know which WJ you were referring to? Mind reading?

Considering William Jefferson and Bill Clinton are two different people...

And as far as your condescending comment: Are you going to back it up with actions?

I already have. I'm telling Pelosi to put up or shut up about draining the swamp. She has chosen to shut up, thus cementing her position as intellectually dishonest.

--Not quite. But please continue to misquote me to try to prop up your poor excuse for an argument. :-) Besides, I've already proven time and time again that, even by your standards, I don't have to enlist anytime soon. :-)--

Nor will people waiting on honest GOPers.


But that's not what I said. You took issue with what I wrote about the intellectually dishonest Democrats. :-)

--I've seen the entire letter, and it's been misquoted repeatedly by your side to excuse Clinton. By the way, I don't see you defending Clinton's actions, which further support my point.--

Defending WHAT actions? You stated he said he loathed the military. I have yet to see any evidence of that.


It was in his original letter.

--Thank you for admitting I was right about Clinton's attitudes about the military. :-)--

Tom, it seems like all you ever do is say "I'm right" over and over again and tack on passive-aggressive smileys, even when you're wrong, even when people aren't doing thing like that to you, and even when they easily COULD do that to you. How do you expect to be respected if that's your solution to everything? I know you play that game in chatrooms. You like baiting people with a condscending tone and personal attacks to smokescreen the issues. So what do you want? Would you rather just not talk to anybody and prefer to simply be left to post your opinions on your blog in peace?

I would rather those who post responses to my posts do so by being honest and knowledgable. And by the way, you went after me first with personal attacks, remember? Not exactly intellectually honest to cry foul now.

--The original letter stated, "I loathe the military." Since then, the Clintonites have tried to change history by altering the orignal letter. By the way, your link isn't the original letter. They didn't have PBS or the Internet back then. Thank you for proving me right. :-)--

You stated earlier about not making statements on blind faith without evidence. Where is the evidence that the original letter stated "I loathe the military"?

It was the original letter, the one you claim to be quoting from, but, in fact, are quoting a cleaned up version.

--Gee, sending soldiers into harm's way with orders not to shoot until shot upon...--

Those are common orders. Many troops in harm's way in Iraq are under orders like that right now.

No they're not. Did we send troops in Iraq stating they were to wait to fire?

--replacing on-the-ground intelligence with satelites...--

But the intel committees of both the House and Senate from both parties embraced high tech intelligence. They were screaming for it after the Gulf War.

That doesn't excuse it, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was meant to be in addition to the on the ground surveilance. Clinton pulled that back because he didn't want us consorting with "the bad guys."

--showing an active disdain for the soliders whose job it was to protect the President from the White House to Marine 1, and vice versa.--

He did? This isn't about the "back-turning soldier", is it?

Nope. It was his entire Administration. Bill and Hillary had a hatred of the military and they showed it repeatedly throughout their years in the White House.

--This is all common knowledge. That's why you have to feign ignorance of it.--

I'm merely asking for a citation.

After you provide a citation of when the IISS did a census of terorrists. :-)

--I posted a quote with attribution from the beginning, and just posted the specifics you requested. You're busted.--

I don't see any evidence of Clinton stating "I loathe the military". You just keep saying he wrote it. When shown evidence to the contrary, you say it was fabricated. When asked for evidence that it was fabricated, you just keep saying he wrote it.

It was in the original letter, not the cleaned up version you're quoting as fact.

--By the way, you're guilty of the same thing you accused me of doing, and you're still doing it. :-)--

Where?

See above. :-)

--The Constitution states Congress spends money, not the President.--

A GOP majority Congress that followed what the President requested.

Which means...Congress spends the money, not the President. Civics 101.

--And let's see the actual numbers. In Washingtonspeak, a cut is a reduction to proposed increases. Show me the real cuts and I'll concede the point. But you can't.--

You think they can't roll back benefits? They tried that with "imminent danger pay" and "family seperation pay", and only backed down from that after public outcry.

Just show me where there were actual cuts. Wouldn't want you to make a statement without supporting documentation, after all... :-)

--Opposing the war in Iraq based on lies is one way, and that's what the Democrats have done and continue to do.--

Based on what lies?

1) Iraq didn't have WMDs.
2) Iraq didn't have any ties to terrorism.
3) Iraq didn't attack us.
4) Iraq had no connection to al Qaeda.
5) Iraq was contained by the UN.

Need more? :-)

--As far as not acting in a military manner, Kerry and Murtha have that experience in spades.--

Because they were critical of atrocities?

No, because they have not acted like military men in that they lied about our troops in the field during a time of war.

--More historical revision. Clinton said he would report to the ROTC and then didn't. No explanation, no attempt to provide an explanation, nothing but a lie.--

What historical revision? He was going to join the ROTC to avoid the draft, but decided not to.

That's not something you decide to do. He was ORDERED to go to the ROTC and he didn't show.

--And funny how Clinton didn't have the "guts" to protest the war until he was overseas. :-)--

England would've granted him immunity?

LOL! You said Clinton had "guts" for opposing the Vietnam war. But his "guts" didn't show up until he was well off our shores. That's not "guts." That's cowardice.

--Another faux liberal lie. Armor was provided from the get-go. Easily proven if you did your homework instead of parroting talking points.--

Not all of them had body armor. And some was outdated. Body armor has an expiration date. Some was from the Vietnam era.

Another faux liberal lie. The troops had the body armor. Which goes back to a lie that John Murtha said, thus further cementing his position as anti-troop.

--I already did,--

Where?

--and you've done plenty of ad hominem attacks on me and others. What's your excuse? :-)--

Where? The worst I've done is ask you questions.

Ummm...you might want to reread your posts again, this time with an honest eye. :-)

--Fine. That's one you finally got right.--

You really DON'T want to talk, do you? Why even have a comment section? Let me guess "Because it's fun to show how you faux liberals are always lying! :-)"?

I want to talk, but I want people who talk to me to be informed and honest. So far, the faux left has batted 0 for 2.

--That's nice, but you didn't really post proof that Schwartzkopf was called a traitor. What was that you said about making blanket statements without proof? :-)--

If they're stating people who are against the war are traitors, then they're calling HIM a traitor. (By the way, in this case I'm not referring to GOP politicians, I'm referring to RW bloggers.)

That's not what you said earlier. You said Republicans called Schwartzkopf a traitor, and so far, no proof...

--You've been lying about the Democrats since your initial posting, so why shouldn't I assume you lied about Murtha's military rank?--

Are you accusing me of LYING now? I haven't accused you of lying when many opportunities to do so have presented itself.

Yes you have. You didn't have the courage to say "You're lying" but instead you've implied it plenty in our exchanges to date.

Or are you saying that your comments about Clinton's "loathing the military" wasn't a suggestion that I was lying? :-)

--More lies. The original text of the speech had a LOT more missing than just the "us." In fact, the statement as made bears little resemblance to the script.--

So you're saying Kerry WASN'T talking about Bush right before the education comment? What's the original text?

Even in the context given in the actual text of the speech, it was unclear until the "punchline" that he was talking about the Bush Administration.

--And let's not overlook the fact that he was at a rally amongst Democrats. When we're around people we're comfortable with, we drop some of the societal expectations put on us and act more openly. Kerry was merely stating what he and his fellow Democrats believe to a group of true believers. Sorry, but I don't buy the "botched joke" line because, once again, I've done my homework.--

You honestly believe that? You actually think he deliberately called the troops in Iraq stupid? You honestly believe that?

Yes I do, because Kerry is arrogant and believes himself to be superior to everyone. And Kerry's already on record as showing disdain for the military.

--Wrong. His immediate statement said he would not apologize to the Bush Administration for prosecuting the war, but made no reference to the troops. That didn't come until day 2 or 3.--

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226490,00.html

Kerry: "My statement YESTERDAY, and the White House knows this full-well, was a BOTCHED JOKE about the president and the president's people and not about the TROOPS."

Are you saying Fox News just made up this quote?

Nope, and he didn't apologize until a day or two later. :-)

--And as I've shown above, my feelings are based in far more than just any feelings I have against Kerry.--

Then what are they based on?

Facts. Try them. You just might like them. :-)

--I am a former Libertarian who left the party after a distinct ideological shift that I didn't agree with.--

What do you feel happened with the Libertarians?

They became Democrat Lite. Their 2004 candidate said Michael Moore had a right to advertise his movie when no such right exists in the Constitution. Also, the LP came out against the war in Iraq, in spite of the fact that they also are opposed to people committing fraud and denying others their rights. Saddam clearly did both of those.

--I am a classic liberal, or a "small-L libertarian" if you'd prefer. My distinction is based on liberalism in thought, not necessarily in practice. The so-called "progressives" are as far away from liberalism as you can get, but they'll still take some pride at being called a liberal because they think it gives them a level of moral superiority. But it's my point that one cannot distort the original ideas of liberalism to include more statist elements and still be a liberal, thus the "faux liberal" tag.--

I see. It would appear you wouldn't care for either party. Why do you feel Conservatives are closer to your classic liberal leanings than the "faux left"?

Because conservatives, at least from the grass roots level that I've seen, actually DO believe in smaller government and personal freedom with personal responsibility.

Just to let you know, I'm not going to crow about the DNC. After the retooling after Mondale's defeat, the Dems aren't truly liberal from my point of view, either. They're closer than the GOP, but not by much.

You're right. They're statists.

My #1 choice of the Democrats is Dennis Kucinich. I'm curious how you feel about him.

He's the genetic combination of Ross Perot and Casey Kasem. And his ideas aren't that great. We already have a "Department of Peace" in existence. It's called the State Department.

And how about the Green Party?

Wrong color. They're closer to communists than environmentalists.

--Laws in and of themselves are a form of the legislation of morality. If it's done to protect society from a larger threat, like murder or theft, I have no problem with it. If it's done against actions that really have no bearing on society as a whole, like pot or sex between adults, I oppose it.

Abortion should be a state issue. The fed has no real say in it from a Constitutional standpoint. I consider myself pro-life, but with an understanding that my opinion is mine and isn't the law of the land. I'm more of an advocate of reducing the number of abortions through persuading society to take up a higher standard than I am of letting government get its hands in the matter.

I am opposed to a draft, mainly because I don't feel it's necessary. We have a lot of military folks cooling their heels in places where we no longer need a military presence. To institute a draft when we have that condition is stupid.

From an ideological standpoint, I'm opposed to the draft because it forces people to do something that may be against their will. Persuasion works better, I've found, than force. What some people will do when drafted is rebel, which hurts morale and cohesiveness. And that, ultimately, hurts any war effort.--

Everything you've said here, I either agree with 100%, or at least respect.

--The separation of church and state isn't a Constitutional concept. I firmly believe people of faith can serve in the government, and that the government shouldn't get involved in religion.--

Agreed.

--And, no, supporting faith-based organizations isn't the same as promoting a religion, so the First Amendment isn't threatened. The reason behind the support, and my support for that matter, of faith-based initiatives is because they have proven to be effective and efficient. If we really want to help people, we need both.--

I feel it's a slippery slope, but I respect your opinion on that.

More like a clear flat surface. Not once have I seen a faith-based organization force anybody to join a church to get benefits.

--That WAS your implication in the statement you made...--

No, I don't expect you to filter here (aside from trollers and spam, of course). There's not enough opposition yet. Maybe when your writings make you more famous.

Nah. I'm committed to letting people speak their minds, even when they disagree. And as you can see if you read some of the past posts from people who have disagreed with me, it's been pretty vile, but I let it roll off my back. It's a small price to pay to be a consistent defender of free speech.

--See above. :-) --

Oh, come now Tom. Show me where I've been unreasonable with you.

You going after me for using smileys was unreasonable and unnecessary.