WallyVon Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 appeasing the masses and removing past inquiries from the record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 not to mention, on tonights news...... they recap this story. Then they mention the General's plan on lowering troop levels pretty soon....then the story of more American's dead today. Its quickly becoming yesterday's news. When they come back from thanksgiving break. How many events will take place over there? Its going to be hard to revisit and pretend the following week(s) didn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Everything done in Washington is a political stunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Jbooma, you trying to get Chom stirred up again?:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Each person should have voted the way they felt... period. Those that didn't are scared for their political "CAREER" to stand for what they believe in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WallyVon Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Each person should have voted the way they felt... period.Those that didn't are scared for their political "CAREER" to stand for what they believe in. Or they recognize spades when they see them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Or they recognize spades when they see them. Didnt you just say in another thread you believe the representatives have a right to the American people first. So if they believe the war is wrong: As you do, then they should vote to bring them home. Then there would be a 41-58 vote or so and it would probably cause that to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WallyVon Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Didnt you just say in another thread you believe the representatives have a right to the American people first. So if they believe the war is wrong: As you do, then they should vote to bring them home. Then there would be a 41-58 vote or so and it would probably cause that to happen. As has been stated elsewhere, even if they wanted to end the war and withdraw the troops, this piece of "legislation" wasn't the way to do it. If/when the Murtha bill comes up for a vote, I expect it to recieve a good number of yes votes, because it is a real bill, as opposed to the farce this thing was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 As has been stated elsewhere, even if they wanted to end the war and withdraw the troops, this piece of "legislation" wasn't the way to do it. If/when the Murtha bill comes up for a vote, I expect it to recieve a good number of yes votes, because it is a real bill, as opposed to the farce this thing was. Ahh but if this one was 40+ it would force a real bill. But if you cant get but 3 votes, why do this again? It goes to the been there done that legislation and ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WallyVon Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Ahh but if this one was 40+ it would force a real bill.But if you cant get but 3 votes, why do this again? It goes to the been there done that legislation and ... The Murtha bill isn't similar in any way to this bill. I'm sure that was the hope of Republicans when they intorduced this farce legislation, but the public and the media have seen through the lies and reported it as what it was: a stunt. Plus, this was in the House, so 40 votes wouldn't mean a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted November 20, 2005 Author Share Posted November 20, 2005 Each person should have voted the way they felt... period.Those that didn't are scared for their political "CAREER" to stand for what they believe in. BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is why I hate politics. We have no clue what they think because they only vote on party lines. This is not a victory for anyone, that it is, is a defeat of for all of us. No wonder why the last couple of presidents have been coming from governer mansions, i don't think this is going to change any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Well, what exactly is it, if not a political stunt??I define a political stunt as something done for only political purposes. This bill had no legislative purpose, it was engineered to fail by those who created it. If anything is ever a political stunt, this is. I would personally call it more of a political manuever...but I can certainly see where some might call it a stunt because of the publicitity it got. I just think it is a little unfair to say that no debate is allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 the Republicans keep using the word "Immediate" when talking about Murtha's proposal.But the Dems and the videoclips show them voting on something that wasn't Murtha's proposal. So, its just too easy to say "Yeah, this wasn't ours...........next" I still don't understand why they wouldn't call him and the Dems on their own proposal for defeat. Instead, a Repubican non-binding resolution was voted down...and their junior most Congresswoman is on video calling Murtha a coward.....and then 5 min later, asking for those remarks off the official record. Too bad she can't have it striken from the video. That's going to haunt her forever. So what actually was his proposal, since he did advocate immediate withdrawel according to every news report I have seen. And I hardly think its fair to blame all Republicans for what's-her-names' stupidity. That's kind of like saying that all the Democrats wanted an immediate withdrawel because Murtha called for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 The Murtha bill isn't similar in any way to this bill. I'm sure that was the hope of Republicans when they intorduced this farce legislation, but the public and the media have seen through the lies and reported it as what it was: a stunt.Plus, this was in the House, so 40 votes wouldn't mean a thing. Ok so what is the 'real' Murtha bill, please explain it here to those of us that have never actually seen it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!This is why I hate politics. We have no clue what they think because they only vote on party lines. This is not a victory for anyone, that it is, is a defeat of for all of us. If you hate politics, then why are you trying to defend a politically divisive (useless) bill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 the Republicans keep using the word "Immediate" when talking about Murtha's proposal.But the Dems and the videoclips show them voting on something that wasn't Murtha's proposal. So, its just too easy to say "Yeah, this wasn't ours...........next" I still don't understand why they wouldn't call him and the Dems on their own proposal for defeat. Instead, a Repubican non-binding resolution was voted down...and their junior most Congresswoman is on video calling Murtha a coward.....and then 5 min later, asking for those remarks off the official record. Too bad she can't have it striken from the video. That's going to haunt her forever. Bufford, Murtha's proposal was to withdraw all 153,000 troops within six months. I would suggest to you that there is no functional difference between immediately beginning a withdrawal (as worded in the House resolution) and finishing one within six months (Mutha's words). So as much as liberals and Democrats may want to whine about using words in the resolution not uttered by Murtha, it's a distinction without a difference. Plus, media reports of Murtha's words clearly revealed the intent of an immediate withdrawal. Whether or not that was an accurate portrayal could be argued seperately, but that was what was reported, therefore that's what the world saw. This statement was only a "stunt" insomuch as it got Democrats to be accountable for their rhetoric. Other than that, it was a very clear and legitimate repudiation of cut-and-run sentiment as articulated by a number of Democrats. By the way, Jean Whatsername who read the quote from the Marine Colonel saying "cowards cut and run, but Marines never do" did go back and ask that her words be removed, and I really wish she wouldn't have done that. That Marine was right on, and as a Marine, I would like to reitterate that statement right here and right now. Cowards cut and run, Marines never do (edit -- unless ordered to do so... by a coward). I don't care if a member of Congress used to be in the military -- kudos to him for his service years ago. But if his years in Congress have softened him up and fattened his @$$, and he wants to cut and run, then let the darts and arrows tagged with the label "cowardice" hit him right in his fat butt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WallyVon Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Bufford, Murtha's proposal was to withdraw all 153,000 troops within six months. I would suggest to you that there is no functional difference between immediately beginning a withdrawal (as worded in the House resolution) and finishing one within six months (Mutha's words). So as much as liberals and Democrats may want to whine about using words in the resolution not uttered by Murtha, it's a distinction without a difference.Plus, media reports of Murtha's words clearly revealed the intent of an immediate withdrawal. Whether or not that was an accurate portrayal could be argued seperately, but that was what was reported, therefore that's what the world saw. This statement was only a "stunt" insomuch as it got Democrats to be accountable for their rhetoric. Other than that, it was a very clear and legitimate repudiation of cut-and-run sentiment as articulated by a number of Democrats. By the way, Jean Whatsername who read the quote from the Marine Colonel saying "cowards cut and run, but Marines never do" did go back and ask that her words be removed, and I really wish she wouldn't have done that. That Marine was right on, and as a Marine, I would like to reitterate that statement right here and right now. Cowards cut and run, Marines never do (edit -- unless ordered to do so... by a coward). I don't care if a member of Congress used to be in the military -- kudos to him for his service years ago. But if his years in Congress have softened him up and fattened his @$$, and he wants to cut and run, then let the darts and arrows tagged with the label "cowardice" hit him right in his fat butt. Again, if it is a "distinction without a difference", as you say, why make a new bill??? Why not allow the Murtha bill to be debated, and vote on it??? Because if there is no difference between the two bills, then this one was redundant and unnecessary, right?? About your complaint regarding media reports: we have freedom of the press, and it isn't up to Congress to enact legislation to determine how the media reports things. Your opinion is a socialist one. The reason she was forced to apologize by her colleagues is because Murtha is hard to criticize. He is a sensible man, and he isn't as easy to discredit as a Michael Moore is. Keep digging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Again, if it is a "distinction without a difference", as you say, why make a new bill??? Why not allow the Murtha bill to be debated, and vote on it??? Because if there is no difference between the two bills, then this one was redundant and unnecessary, right??About your complaint regarding media reports: we have freedom of the press, and it isn't up to Congress to enact legislation to determine how the media reports things. Your opinion is a socialist one. The reason she was forced to apologize by her colleagues is because Murtha is hard to criticize. He is a sensible man, and he isn't as easy to discredit as a Michael Moore is. Keep digging. So now your saying the bills are the same so let it stand? After saying they were completely different.. Your a hard man to debate, you can take any side of the argument at any moment. Lets not put Murtha out there with Moore, that apples to porches as they say around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WallyVon Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 So now your saying the bills are the same so let it stand? After saying they were completely different..Your a hard man to debate, you can take any side of the argument at any moment. Lets not put Murtha out there with Moore, that apples to porches as they say around here. No, I'm saying IF they were the same, THEN there was no point for the Republicans to introduce their bill. Reading comprehension, anyone?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 No, I'm saying IF they were the same, THEN there was no point for the Republicans to introduce their bill.Reading comprehension, anyone?? Again this brings us right back (see circular argument) why would they vote any different then, and why not VOTE YOUR CONCIENCE then as this just screwed up the real vote, thus making the Murtha vote unnecessary. Its not reading comprehension, its keeping track of the entire argument and not just the last post or two... So again, they vote the way they feel and were not here right now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WallyVon Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Again this brings us right back (see circular argument) why would they vote any different then, and why not VOTE YOUR CONCIENCE then as this just screwed up the real vote, thus making the Murtha vote unnecessary.Its not reading comprehension, its keeping track of the entire argument and not just the last post or two... So again, they vote the way they feel and were not here right now... They did vote the way they feel. It was an idiotic piece of legislation, and they rejected it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 WOOOOH interception TD.. Lamar M. See thats who you do it on capital hill. Take what they throw out there and run it back 15yds for the TD hhee sorry, couldnt help it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WallyVon Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 WOOOOH interception TD.. Lamar M.See thats who you do it on capital hill. Take what they throw out there and run it back 15yds for the TD hhee sorry, couldnt help it. Yep, thats what the Dems did on Friday. :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 By the way, Jean Whatsername who read the quote from the Marine Colonel saying "cowards cut and run, but Marines never do" did go back and ask that her words be removed, and I really wish she wouldn't have done that. That Marine was right on, and as a Marine, I would like to reitterate that statement right here and right now. Cowards cut and run, Marines never do (edit -- unless ordered to do so... by a coward). I don't care if a member of Congress used to be in the military -- kudos to him for his service years ago. But if his years in Congress have softened him up and fattened his @$$, and he wants to cut and run, then let the darts and arrows tagged with the label "cowardice" hit him right in his fat butt. There is a reason the republican leadership b!tch slapped the rookie congresswoman on her words, because they were entirely WRONG!!!! If you would have watched the entire debate on the floor, you would have realized exactly what was going on, and you would have heard a NUMBER of republican congresmen come out in support of Murtha. If you have paid any attention to politics over the years, you would know that a 30+ year congressman who has been one of the most ardent supporters of the Military is no coward. You would realize a man who visits Walter Reed at least once a week is no coward!!! You would realize that your words do more harm then good, they are wrong for this country and they are meant to do nothing except inflame or scare anyone into having an opposing viewpoint. . . BTW, there is a poll out of military families and ones in Iraq, and over 50% of the military now wants to leave Iraq. . . are they all cowards too??? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 I don't care if a member of Congress used to be in the military -- kudos to him for his service years ago. But if his years in Congress have softened him up and fattened his @$$, and he wants to cut and run, then let the darts and arrows tagged with the label "cowardice" hit him right in his fat butt. Wow. Even Sarge is a fan of Murtha's. You haven't really done your homework on this guy, have you? It seems to me that any member of the military who opposes the Republican party line is immediately rejected, without any examination of the facts, as soft, cowardly, traitorous, or "fake." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.