[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The left leaning members of the media said it would be a quagmire, said we would be bogged down like the Soviets and urged a “diplomatic solution.”
Most of the Democratic party were smart enough to vote for the war in Afghanistan but millions of “progressives” opposed it.
Most of the left tries to forget that. I never will.[/quote]
I would imagine the media asked about whether or not there was a chance it would be a quagmire… but I don’t recall, so I can only suspect your characterization of that.
Strange that democrats voted for Afghanistan, so how are you identifying “progressives”? It’s not fair if you get to make up new labels all the time and slap them around.
There are always whacko’s out there, the peace at any cost types, but you can’t just blame this or that group for their existence…
You are kidding right? Just about everyone has voiced support for Afghanistan…[/quote]
That was entirely my point - whether or not ‘terrorists’ will be ‘created’ is not the primary reason to debate having a war in that context against Islamism, just as it was not the deciding factor for Afghanistan.
Islamism is the ideology of radical Islamic fundamentalism - it is essentially a synonym for Islamofascism. You are confused.
This statement makes little sense, largely because that is exactly what I do - I take the Islamists at their word rather than try to explain away their behavior with some ‘false conciousness’ garbage we usually get.
But on a broader note - honestly, do you have a move other than to accuse anyone who offers a differing viewpoint than you to be ‘spin’? You have abused the term long enough. Constantly droning on about spin regarding every single person who disgrees with you has bored all of us, regardless of political persuasion. It is not an argument, so stop trying to hide behind it as such.
And, for so long as the West exists - what with our liberal society a constant reminder of humiliation to a culture that continues to slide away from modernity, whether it be women with jobs and sexy business suits or our refusal to live under dhimmitude - there will be an excuse for radicalists to strike out against the impure.
You are whining because Islamism isn’t being fought perfectly - my complaint was that the Left won’t fight it even sufficiently, forget perfectly.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The left leaning members of the media said it would be a quagmire, said we would be bogged down like the Soviets and urged a “diplomatic solution.”
Most of the Democratic party were smart enough to vote for the war in Afghanistan but millions of “progressives” opposed it.
Most of the left tries to forget that. I never will.
I would imagine the media asked about whether or not there was a chance it would be a quagmire… but I don’t recall, so I can only suspect your characterization of that.
Strange that democrats voted for Afghanistan, so how are you identifying “progressives”? It’s not fair if you get to make up new labels all the time and slap them around.
There are always whacko’s out there, the peace at any cost types, but you can’t just blame this or that group for their existence…[/quote]
By progressive I mean leftist.
Most Democrats are not true leftists just like most Republicans are not true conservatives.
The leftists were against invasion of Afghanistan.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The leftists were against invasion of Afghanistan.
They marched all over the world.
[/quote]
That’s not at all true, I think maybe you’re confusing Iraq with Afganistan. Following 9/11 I can’t recall any opposition to the invasion of Afganistan except by a few radical no-violence-for-any-reason fringe groups.
But almost every person in the world with the exception of Tony Blair and 49% of the US population opposed the invasion of Iraq, for reasons that have become painfully obvious now. And a fairly good portion of that 49% in the US had some doubts.
[quote]tme wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The leftists were against invasion of Afghanistan.
They marched all over the world.
That’s not at all true, I think maybe you’re confusing Iraq with Afganistan. Following 9/11 I can’t recall any opposition to the invasion of Afganistan except by a few radical no-violence-for-any-reason fringe groups.
…
[/quote]
From a lefty website:
New York City protest opposes war in Afghanistan
By our reporter
12 October 2001
Over 10,000 people turned out in New York City on Sunday, October 7 to oppose the Bush administration?s so-called war on terrorism. …
Tens of thousands march in the US and Europe against war preparations
By Paul Sherman
3 October 2001
Tens of thousands of people marched in the United States and Europe this past weekend to oppose the use of military force in retaliation for the September 11 terror attack on New York and Washington that left over 6,000 people dead.
At the largest demonstration, 15,000 participated in a march and rally in Washington DC on Saturday, September 29. Smaller protests were also held in Los Angeles and New York, as well as a second demonstration in Washington DC on Sunday.
Demonstrations were also held in the Netherlands, Spain and Greece. Over 10,000 people filled Amsterdam?s central square, the Dam, on Sunday for an open air meeting. It was the largest peace action in the Netherlands since the 1980s, when half a million people marched against the deployment of NATO missiles in that country.
…
Why we oppose the war in Afghanistan
Statement of the WSWS Editorial Board
9 October 2001
The World Socialist Web Site condemns the American military assault on Afghanistan. We reject the dishonest claims of the Bush administration that this is a war for justice and the security of the American people against terrorism.
…
Leftists protested the invasion of Afghanistan the world over.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
That was entirely my point - whether or not ‘terrorists’ will be ‘created’ is not the primary reason to debate having a war in that context against Islamism, just as it was not the deciding factor for Afghanistan.[/quote]
Nobody said it was. At least not anybody that I’ve seen around these parts. Are you living in a fantasy world making shit up again?
I’ve said repeatedly that I’m not against war, though I am against the manner in which the Iraq war was instigated with cherry picked intelligence and a lack of need with respect to terrorist ties to Iraq.
Regardless, if the populace chooses war, based on a decision due to real facts, then I’m not against it… it’s all about the appropriate will of the populace as implemented by (not ceded by) congress.
You and some other folks stop regurgitating spin and I’ll stop commenting on the spin I’m seeing. Sound fair?
Dude, you need to figure out the difference between the radical leadership, the propaganda they use to recruit idiots, and what most people are really thinking.
Bullshit. I am whining because Bush took the nation to war on a fallacy. If he had simply discussed the need and got the vote, then he can go to war with whoever the fuck the US public wants to go to war with.
Do you see my point at all? I am not against war, per se, as you somehow seem to believe. Liberals are not the same as peaceniks, though there are certainly people out there who are so.
Maybe if you could peel off differing layers of the onion, instead of branding everyone to the left of yourself as some sinister kumba-ya singing limp-wristed lefty, perhaps you wouldn’t sound like such a fucking idiot.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The World Socialist Web Site…[/quote]
These are self-described fucking socialists.
Like they have anything to do with anyone around these parts?
Holy fuck, no wonder nobody can figure out what you and skippy are talking about, you keep ascribing the actions of marginal groups to mainstrain liberals.
Nobody said it was. At least not anybody that I’ve seen around these parts. Are you living in a fantasy world making shit up again?[/quote]
Well then, genius, you could then figure out that my original comments were directed at Harris to make the point that even though terrorists are ‘created’ in a war, there may be other, more important reasons to go to war. He made a point I was responding to.
Yes, because of the reams of cyberink you spill using one hundred words to say what you could say in ten, we know exactly why you are against the manner the Iraq war was instigated.
If you were half as smart as you think you are - and that would be quite a bit, but the deliverables have suggested otherwise - you would realize that you are trying to attack my point about a broader view of the Left of the war in Iraq, etc., by saying you don’t think that way. Fine - you can think anyway you want. My criticism is of the Left generally.
Vroom, you were once an interesting guy to talk to on these forums. Now, you are a cartoon of yourself.
You know as well as I do I don’t regurgitate ‘spin’ - and the sad part is, you don’t even know what that means. You have no criteria for ‘spin’ other than someone takes a position that Vroom doesn’t like. We see it for what it is - a weakness.
You think Boston, myself - anyone - that argues from a conservative point of view is merely memorizing political brochures mailed to us by the RNC, while you, on the other hand, can’t wait to congratulate yourself for being an original, independent thinker.
It’s garbage - and everyone sees through it. Oh, and just to further the point, your precious ‘Government of Opportunity’, which you opine about on your insufferably pretentious blog that no one reads as a new paradigm from your Enlightened mind, was already created and is called Third Way politics.
It’s simple, Vroom - you are ten pounds of shit in a five pound bag.
Do tell - and let’s see if I know more about it than you.
Well, step one is in place - at least you admit to whining.
But this has been repeated time and again - he had Congressional authority. He got the vote. There was no rush to war - he made his case to the UN and in the State of the Union. Everyone saw this coming.
Was it an imperfect decision? Definitely. But he got the vote. Secondly, the American people ratified that decision by re-electing him in 2004.
I see your point, but it is largely irrelevant to what I was arguing earlier - that I would not have changed my vote in 2004, even with what I know now. I simply don’t believe the current version of the Left is willing to sustain a real war against Islamism.
I was never arguing that you would not sustain a real war against Islamism, though my hunch is you wouldn’t, but that is another topic.
However, I do think we could use your writing - as in your attempt at a blog - in the military campaign against Islamism: captured combatants would have to read your material - with its vacuous paragraphs of no real information, its pedestrian attempts to sound high-minded while really impressing no one, and the painfully insecure insults hurled at your opponents that slide off like Teflon - as part of their daily routine.
I do have concerns, however, that having to read your posts may not pass muster under the Geneva Convention.
Let’s see, we are back to Vroom’s true nature - the forum’s equivalent of a balling child throwing a tantrum and lashing out against big meanies.
So wait - your opponents are all victims of opinion and can’t think rationally, but Vroom is unencumbered by such stuff and is sober Reason defined?
My opinion is one shared by Peter Beinart, it turns out, guru at the liberal New Republic. A professed liberal, he says the same thing I do - that no one trusts the Left to handle the war against Islamism. His contention is that we can’t trust conservatives either. Fair enough, a debate for another time. But my opinion essentially marches in lockstep with his in that the current Left cannot or will not do what is necessary to win against Islamism.
It is not exactly a radical point of view, Vroom - even the left-of-center is having this debate within itself. Dumbass.
The real question is: will you ever grow up and be able to have a civil debate with someone who takes a different position than you?
And as for me being a ‘fucking idiot’ - take a poll, cupcake, and see who buys that one.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
There’s not one progressive who advocates talking or negotiating with terrorists. We just thought it was maybe a bad idea to create so many by atacking Iraq.
We created many terrorists when we attacked Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban. Were ‘progressives’ for or against that one?
And I don’t argue that people can’t have differing opinions on whether or not Iraq was a good idea - my point was that even outside the context of Iraq, the Left is not serious about seeing Islamism as a true enemy because, as I said earlier, the Left remains drunk on the idea that Islamism is our fault. If Islamism is believed to be ‘our fault’, it won’t be fought sufficiently.
We think that naming people “enemy combatants” and denying them legal counsel is undrmining everything that America means.
Fantastic.
Please stop listening to right-wing radio; it is the oppoite of thought.
First, I wouldn’t even know where to locate talk-radio of any stripe - the only non-music radio I listen to is NPR, and that is rarely.
And secondly, you are one of the dimmest trolls here - don’t you feel embarrassed lecturing people on how to think? You should, so stop doing it.[/quote]
I don’t feel embarassed inthe slightest to lecture dumbasses such as yourself.
I especialy love how you ignore my main argument, which is that the right’s contstamt drumbeat refrain that liberals “hate america” and want the terroritists to win is retarded, pure and simple, and instead whine about how you don’t listen to right-wing radio.
I bring up that we’re creating terror by invading Iraq and turning a country in a chaotic sandbox, and you mention that Afghanistan was a good idea.
Many people thought breaking the back of the Taliban was a good idea years ago. Dubya thought it would be a good idea to meet with them in Texas.
(And, by the way, the Taliban aren’t making a comeback, are they?)
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Fine - you can think anyway you want. My criticism is of the Left generally.[/quote]
There is no “general left”, except some fantasy “left” concocted by right wingers to represent all that is evil in the world.
[quote]Vroom, you were once an interesting guy to talk to on these forums. Now, you are a cartoon of yourself.
You know as well as I do I don’t regurgitate ‘spin’ - and the sad part is, you don’t even know what that means. You have no criteria for ‘spin’ other than someone takes a position that Vroom doesn’t like. We see it for what it is - a weakness.[/quote]
Have you looked in a mirror lately? Spin is when carefully crafted half-truths or mischaracterizations are applied to political issues.
You guys stop spinning and cheerleading and I’ll stop commenting on it.
If you’ve noticed, from time to time my viewpoints line up perfectly with people like Rainjack, who I don’t think anyone will call a liberal.
There is a difference between having opinions that are Republican at times and having “the” Republican opinion. If you are too stupid to know the difference I don’t care. I don’t care if you like reading what I type or anything else.
Blah blah blah. Like I’m here to make sure that you are entertained by my thoughts. Nitwit.
Yeah, sure, that’s it!
Hey, looks like I have one reader. Dude, you have a serious problem of some type. I’m not sure what it is called, but you have some type of complex or something.
Anyhow, if there is something called third way politics, and it isn’t coopted by some loony leftist groups you like to characterize liberals as, maybe I’d be interested in looking at it.
LOL. Did I hit a nerve somewhere. Lash out all you want, you are just a retard on a keyboard to me also buddy, have at it.
Any asshole knows these points are completely arguable. This means that you don’t have a “conclusion” in this sense such as you outline. Many fair thinking people see many indications, including reports from those involved, that cherry picking was going on, that fear was used to coerce action.
You don’t have to feel that is the case, but to claim your view is “the” view is the hight of hubris. You really should be looking in a mirror. At least I recognize the views involved and that mine doesn’t have to the right view.
That is a spin way of characterizing the election. Somehow, I don’t think the issue was on the ballot. You are such a stupid fuckwad to lecture me on using the term spin and then to start issuing it like it’s going out of style.
Hey, see, if you had jumped into this instead of your crying and wailing we’d possibly have had a constructive coversation… but I doubt it.
[quote]I was never arguing that you would not sustain a real war against Islamism, though my hunch is you wouldn’t, but that is another topic.
However, I do think we could use your writing - as in your attempt at a blog - in the military campaign against Islamism: captured combatants would have to read your material - with its vacuous paragraphs of no real information, its pedestrian attempts to sound high-minded while really impressing no one, and the painfully insecure insults hurled at your opponents that slide off like Teflon - as part of their daily routine. [/quote]
LOL. You are making an ass of yourself, you realize that right? It’s a blog buddy… take a pill.
Again, have you looked in a mirror. I see some fair attempts at trying to insult me or otherwise lash out at me with your “vicious” attacks. Too bad I’m laughing at you.
[quote]
My opinion is one shared by Peter Beinart, it turns out, guru at the liberal New Republic. A professed liberal, he says the same thing I do - that no one trusts the Left to handle the war against Islamism. His contention is that we can’t trust conservatives either. Fair enough, a debate for another time. But my opinion essentially marches in lockstep with his in that the current Left cannot or will not do what is necessary to win against Islamism.
It is not exactly a radical point of view, Vroom - even the left-of-center is having this debate within itself. Dumbass.[/quote]
LOL.
Often do. When they debate or are willing to concede ANYTHING at all so that a conversation can occur.
Cupcake? Okay tough guy. I’m really shaking. Your post pretty much proves you are a fucking idiot. Good job!!!
I don’t feel embarassed inthe slightest to lecture dumbasses such as yourself.[/quote]
Well, you should - and try the dumbass line somewhere else. After all, I am not dumb enough to try meth, so don’t be fool enough to claim any intellectual superiority over me.
If that was your main argument, then state it as such. I addressed what you wrote.
I certainly didn’t ‘whine’ - you, like other lazy Lefties, can usually do no better than to duck away by suggesting I get all my information from right-wing media. My response was merely a polite explanation that I don’t listen to right-wing radio, and you aren’t gonna be able to get out of it that easily.
Nope - I qualified that the war in Iraq has to be measured by some other statistic than by ‘how many terrorists it was creating’, because there are many other factors to consider, same as Afghanistan.
You trying to peddle this internet lie? Give it up - this is old news. The Taliban came into Texas under the authority of the Department of State - a Governor Bush could not have authorized them to arrive. So who was President when this occurred? Whose State Department authorized the Taliban to come into the US to discuss the pipeline?
[quote]
harris447 wrote:
I’ve met “middle America”. They like NASCAR and they think Dubya’s doing a heckuva job. They think The DaVinci Code is literature and Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
They consider the Olive Garden an acceptable place to eat and agree with Sean Hannity.
Toby Keith’s a great songwriter in “middle America” but Tom Waits doesn’t sell many albums.
Middle America is full of fucking retards.
Professor X wrote:
How dare you…present the truth like that.[/quote]
Yeah, and the left and right coasts are full of retards, and Europe, and Asia, and Africa, etc. There’s only so much room in the top 10% of the Bell Curve…
But to the extent you’re for some form of democracy and universal suffrage, you’re for being ruled by those “retards.”
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Hey – all of those who actually like President Bush need to stand up and show that support. We see thread after thread of “Bush bashing,” but nobody seems to stand up for him in a coordinated way. Since T-Nation is read all over the world, I think we need to show that these libs are not the majority opinion of our country. These liberal lunatics (who cannot win elections anymore) might be the majority in the liberal East and West coasts, but they don’t reflect the majority opinion of America.
OK, then please show your support for President Bush by stating the main reason that you think he is doing a good job.
I think President Bush is doing a good job, because he has protected us from enemy attack since 9/11 and has stood up to terrorism in the face of strong opposition from the liberal left.
Now your turn…
This is NOT a rip or trick: Steve, I admire your attitude in starting these threads. You don’t mind a good battle and I like that.
Guys, love him or hate him, give the man credit for not backing down from controversial issues.
HH
[/quote]
I second that better man than me I would have punched some of these media types in the mouth already
There is no “general left”, except some fantasy “left” concocted by right wingers to represent all that is evil in the world.[/quote]
Sure there is - even lefties refer to the Left generally. And the same goes for everyone else.
[quote]Have you looked in a mirror lately? Spin is when carefully crafted half-truths or mischaracterizations are applied to political issues.
You guys stop spinning and cheerleading and I’ll stop commenting on it.[/quote]
Again, this is a cowardly non-answer. What have I mischaracterized? I have been arguing my point, no more, no less. You haven’t said what has been mischaracterized - you merely claim ‘spin’ exists and then request we stop doing it.
You don’t know - you just fire blanks.
Great - so what? What does that have to do with ‘spin’?
Might be difficult for me to have “the” Republican opinion since I have stated in these forums that I no longer consider myself a part of the GOP.
Much more stupidly though, you suddenly have amnesia about how I started in this thread to begin with, not more than a page or two ago - I specificly criticized Bush as having been a bad leader in the war against Islamism and that both he and the Republican Congress have done a terrible job of governing.
Now, explain to me Vroom - how can I be toting “the” Republican line when not more than a page ago I expressly voiced by disapproval of the Republican President and the Republican majority Congress?
How is that possible? It’s not. Maybe a few more logic classes down at the old community college? Whatever the solution, please do better - that was pathetic.
You’re not here to make sure I am entertained, but I presume you are to at least competently make arguments - and on that count, you are failing. See above.
Huh? I have a complex because I point out that you are a failure as a blogger? No - just making sure you have a realistic view of your written work.
Yes, go read up on it and learn a little bit about politics. You might fare better when you do.
Secondly, I don’t equate liberalism with the Left - if you read my recent post to Irish, you would know that. Keep up.
Not really - I just know a hack when I see one. You are an easy mark, Vroom. That was my only point.
And here is the meat of it - then argue those points. I have no problem that that information is arguable - I invite anyone to take the position. But you are clearly not up to it - when someone makes a point you disagree with, rather than refute it with substantive arguments, you offer a smug reply that that viewpoint merely constitutes ‘spin’ and you skip away with no substance.
See the point? If you think something is arguable, argue it, debate it - and stop taking the easy way out.
Great - I am open to a robust debate on the matter. Do you know of anyone who can pull that off from your side? Clearly you cannot - any ideas?
Laughable. Poor Vroom is in retreat. I argued my point. There are conclusory, largely because they are - wait for it - conclusions I have made based on the information. They are my opinions, and anyone is welcome to offer something different.
So sensitive of you.
Of course it is spin by your definition, because you can’t adequately discuss it. The issue was not on the ballot - we don’t have a formal national referenda, read up on that as soon as you get done with the Third Way materials - but the Iraq war and the decision to go to war was the central issue of the election. The people had the choice to go the other way and they did not. What does that mean? At the very least, it means that the people considered the decision of going to war in Iraq before making the choice for President.
However, do me a favor and give me a characterization of the election with no ‘spin’.
Your childishness aside, my characterization of the election is just fine. In your view, no right if center viewpoint will ever fall outside the scope of spin, so it is a meaningless word.
Many folks said that the 2004 election would be a referendum on the war in Iraq. There was no bigger issue.
See, Vroom, here is the thing - go read my posts and your reponses. Go read what I wrote. Without question, you are the one instigating something other than a constructive conversation. I directed nothing at you and stated my thoughts. You cannot reply anymore in a constructive, civil manner anymore - it is always a smug “LOL, all this is spin. Moron”. And now you have the audacity to complain that I somehow undermined our chance at a good conversation?
Have some integrity. It is there for all of us to read.
And, let it go with trying to paint me as a crier and a wailer. Geez, do you read your own material?
I am insulting your writing. It was pretty straightforward, I thought.
Yes, I absolutely decided to insult you. I responded in kind. Who here should expect to let you post the way you do without pulling your card?
And I don’t actually think you are laughing at me. Sometimes tough talk works, and sometimes it doesn’t - in your case, it comes off as silly.
[quote]My opinion is one shared by Peter Beinart, it turns out, guru at the liberal New Republic. A professed liberal, he says the same thing I do - that no one trusts the Left to handle the war against Islamism. His contention is that we can’t trust conservatives either. Fair enough, a debate for another time. But my opinion essentially marches in lockstep with his in that the current Left cannot or will not do what is necessary to win against Islamism.
It is not exactly a radical point of view, Vroom - even the left-of-center is having this debate within itself. Dumbass.
LOL.[/quote]
Notice how my point comparing my argument to that of a prominent liberal writer as proof that my argument is a fairly mainstream idea received no substantive answer from you. Could you be more tranparent?
What exactly should I concede? I have stated not less than a page ago that reasonable people can have differing views on Iraq - what are you looking for?
I think what you mean is that you don’t want disagreement - too bad, Vroom. If you aren’t up for the exchange, find something else to do.
Nice try - a post ago, you thought it necessary to attack my intelligence. I responded in kind. Poor Vroom - what ammunition do you have left?
Yeah, and the left and right coasts are full of retards, and Europe, and Asia, and Africa, etc. There’s only so much room in the top 10% of the Bell Curve…
But to the extent you’re for some form of democracy and universal suffrage, you’re for being ruled by those “retards.”
[/quote]
Hey, we only keep this up because we have no better idea…
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The World Socialist Web Site…
These are self-described fucking socialists.
Like they have anything to do with anyone around these parts?
Holy fuck, no wonder nobody can figure out what you and skippy are talking about, you keep ascribing the actions of marginal groups to mainstrain liberals.
Quit being stupid.[/quote]
Socialists consider themselves progressive and leftist. So does everyone else.
It was a socialist web site reporting on the anti-Afghan war marches.
Not al marchers were members of the socialist party but they were almost all leftists.
Tens of thousands of people march against the war in cities all over the world and I am the only one that remembers it and you call me stupid?
Your not being aware of these events is scaring me vroom.
harris447 wrote:
I’ve met “middle America”. They like NASCAR and they think Dubya’s doing a heckuva job. They think The DaVinci Code is literature and Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
They consider the Olive Garden an acceptable place to eat and agree with Sean Hannity.
Toby Keith’s a great songwriter in “middle America” but Tom Waits doesn’t sell many albums.
Middle America is full of fucking retards.
Professor X wrote:
How dare you…present the truth like that.
Yeah, and the left and right coasts are full of retards, and Europe, and Asia, and Africa, etc. There’s only so much room in the top 10% of the Bell Curve…
But to the extent you’re for some form of democracy and universal suffrage, you’re for being ruled by those “retards.”
[/quote]
Boston, you all need to pick a stance. Terribleivan wrote this earlier in this thread:
Now, either people are simple followers who believe whatever they are told by the HUGE liberal conspiracy that rules all media from the shadows…OR, they are all highly intelligent individuals who dig deeper for their info.
There is, of course, the possibility that the media isn’t so “liberal” or influential. So, which is it?
I am confused at how you all scream about the horrors of liberal media. If you are giving the general public so much credit…apparently far beyond what you think I give them, then why would it matter?
Just for fun, here is Vroom’s idea of what it means to toe “the” Republican line, apparently (quoting myself):
"1. [Bush] has not been the leader we need during a serious war against Islamism.
[Bush] has presided over a government of bad laws - regardless of their substance, it’s like he and the Republican Congress will pass any piece of trash presented. That is bad stewardship, regardless of party.
…And, something else that needs to reiterated - should the GOP lose the House or even the 2008 election, there is absolutely no one else to blame other than the GOP itself."
Let’s see, I am not sure - is what I posted above ‘spin’, ‘talking points’, or ‘Kool-Aid’?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Just for fun, here is Vroom’s idea of what it means to toe “the” Republican line, apparently (quoting myself):
"1. [Bush] has not been the leader we need during a serious war against Islamism.
[Bush] has presided over a government of bad laws - regardless of their substance, it’s like he and the Republican Congress will pass any piece of trash presented. That is bad stewardship, regardless of party.
…And, something else that needs to reiterated - should the GOP lose the House or even the 2008 election, there is absolutely no one else to blame other than the GOP itself."
Let’s see, I am not sure - is what I posted above ‘spin’, ‘talking points’, or ‘Kool-Aid’?
