RealGun
Member
Lemon Tetra said:
If he has the slightest chance as a presidential candidate, now is his chance. If he has any toughness, I would like to see it. Being on the outs with Harry the Weasel is a good opening.
Democrats Hijack Senate - rule 21 invoked
- Thread starter rick_reno
- Start date
- Status
If he has the slightest chance as a presidential candidate, now is his chance. If he has any toughness, I would like to see it. Being on the outs with Harry the Weasel is a good opening.
RealGun
Member
Krenn said:
Well, all they did was form a committee.
Jake
Member
I'm thinking that this is nothing more then the Dems throwing a bone to the wingnut portion of the party because they know they won't be able to block Alito's nomination. The moonbats are going to go ballistic when conformation happens and this way Reid and company will be able to say "We may have failed to block Alito but look what else we accomplished instead." It's nothing more then a way to help placate the pillaging hordes once they decide to turn on their masters.
"Being duped" or lied to requires intent, which you have to prove, not just allege (just like anything else). I suppose we also forget that there were some chemical weapons used against our troops, not to mention the delivery systems, et al. Oh, and by the way, the Brits stood by their intel about the Uranium(?).
I'm still trying to figure out how the Libby indictment triggered this. He was indicted (="accused" by the way, not "guilty") for lying under oath, obstruction, etc., nothing to do with "outing a CIA operative." Add to that the prosecutor announced at one of his multiple press conferences that the investigation and indictments had nothing to do with the intelligence leading to the war in Iraq. We'll see if a crime has been committed, and if it has, justice will be dispensed hopefully.
I do have one question for anyone saying "no WMD." If, for some reason, the Repubs have been keeping some intel/results back and do actually have documentation (e.g. photos, papers, reports from military in the field) and present the proof of WMD, will you believe? Or come up with more theories as to how that proof is invalid? I have a guess to that answer, but I wish I would be wrong.
bjbarron
Member
I lately asked one of my sKerry voting children who they would like to vote for in 2008.
The Reply: "Anybody but Bush".
I pointed out that Bush wouldn't be running and I'd like to know which Democrat had a vision of the future that appealed to them.
The Answer: McCain
My query: You know McCain's a republican, don't you?
The Answer: Yep!
So wrong on so many levels.
The Reply: "Anybody but Bush".
I pointed out that Bush wouldn't be running and I'd like to know which Democrat had a vision of the future that appealed to them.
The Answer: McCain
My query: You know McCain's a republican, don't you?
The Answer: Yep!
So wrong on so many levels.
RealGun
Member
jcoiii said:
The sad part is that many of these folks don't genuinely care about the war and aren't really that offended about being given bogus information. They just don't like George Bush.
IGB wrote:
With respect, I don't think Frist learned anything today. He's known what to expect all along. What he did today was use this little temper tantrum of the Dems to prepare the American people for what's to come. He's saying "See? You can trust these guys! We've got important things to do, and these guys are stuck on the 2004 election for Pete's sake! With the Dems doing whatever they can to stand in the way of progress at any cost, we've got no choice but to use our majority, however necessary, to get things done." (see also: Nuclear Option)
Give a man enough rope and he'll hang himself. That's just what the Dems did today, and Frist was there to pull the lever. It's about time.
In future months, when the Dems complain about a ruthless GOP senate, Frist is going to bring up this stunt time and time again, as an example of why the Dems can't be trusted to put the US ahead of their petty political interests.
With respect, I don't think Frist learned anything today. He's known what to expect all along. What he did today was use this little temper tantrum of the Dems to prepare the American people for what's to come. He's saying "See? You can trust these guys! We've got important things to do, and these guys are stuck on the 2004 election for Pete's sake! With the Dems doing whatever they can to stand in the way of progress at any cost, we've got no choice but to use our majority, however necessary, to get things done." (see also: Nuclear Option)
Give a man enough rope and he'll hang himself. That's just what the Dems did today, and Frist was there to pull the lever. It's about time.
In future months, when the Dems complain about a ruthless GOP senate, Frist is going to bring up this stunt time and time again, as an example of why the Dems can't be trusted to put the US ahead of their petty political interests.
B
Boss Spearman
Guest
When the Iraq conflict started, their were news sites all over the web, particularly overseas, with all sorts of information on Iraq not having any weapons. The Democrats who claim they were lied to had the same access to that type of information, if they had only bothered to check on any of it for themselves.
mountainclmbr
Member
The title should have been "Marx finally takes the Senate".
Gordon Fink
Member
jcoiii said:
Damn! I guess I’ll have to spell it out for you, though I thought it would have more impact if you connected the dots all by yourself.
The Democrats think they’ve been lied to—though I allowed for a variety of Republican excuses.
Meanwhile …
You supported a war for gun control, if in name only.
That was my real point, which is the same one I’ve been making since well before the war began.
~G. Fink
I will always proudly support gun control for all nations which are not allies of the United States of America.
I love the 2nd Amendment. I love that our military protects us from the the tyrants of the world who would seek to overthrow our republic.
There's no contradiction here.
____________________
-twency
xd9fan
Member
DRZinn
Member
If the man on the next block were a gun owner who had previously shot some of his own kids, as well as some of his neighbors' kids, and was known to be looking for someone who would use those guns to come to my house and shoot me, then yes, I'd happily support sending the cops over to take his guns.
Even if it later turned out he was out of ammo.
BryanP
Member
El Tejon said:If they are using the rules, then how is this a hijacking?
May be poor tactics, but not a "hijacking".
How dare you ask such a ... reasonable question?
The Real Hawkeye
member
As much as I hate Democrats, you all have to know in your heart of hearts that president Bush intentionally cooked the books in order to convince most Americans that if we did not immediately wage all out war on Iraq (a nation that never, prior to our hostilities against them, attacked us or our allies), Iraq was going to start nuking American cities any day, right? You have to know that, right? We all heard him making this argument to the American people, didn't we? We all know how insane the suggestion was, don't we? We all understand the implications for future wars initiated by us, don't we?
The Real Hawkeye
member
False! Most of the modern era wars we've been in, the Dems got us in, and usually the American people were manipulated into supporting the action with phony intelligence reporting by the White House. This case is no different, except that it was a Republican who got us into this one, and it is the first time we actually attacked first. Usually they arrange events in such as way as to force our "enemies" into attacking us first, or at the very least falsely report that an "ememy" has attacked us first, such as the Bay of Tonkin incident. I guess they figure there's no need for that anymore. No one is any longer pretending that we are just a peaceful republic who only attacks when actually attacked. We can just make up stories about our enemies planning immanent attacks on us, and go at it now, or, as was done in Desert Storm, we can just add combatant nations in foreign wars, ad hoc, to our list of valued allies and attack their enemies on that basis.
Last edited:
Camp David
member
After watching the news last evening on this Democrat stunt in the Senate, I firmly believe that Harry Reid has gone senile and Dickhead Durban is on drugs. Reid has gone where no man but Robert Byrd has ventured before: the edges of insanity...
Mad that they lost last election, and control neither the House, Senate, or White House, and precious few state Governorships, Democrats have finally snapped... lockstep behind their senile leader Reid! And for does of sanity they listen to: Doctor Dean at the DNC!
The Republican response to all this is best summed up in one word: pity!
Michelle Malkin uses the words "unhinged liberal" and I am beginning to understand why... that's a good definition!
Mad that they lost last election, and control neither the House, Senate, or White House, and precious few state Governorships, Democrats have finally snapped... lockstep behind their senile leader Reid! And for does of sanity they listen to: Doctor Dean at the DNC!
The Republican response to all this is best summed up in one word: pity!
Michelle Malkin uses the words "unhinged liberal" and I am beginning to understand why... that's a good definition!
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,716
Quote
"I pointed out that Bush wouldn't be running and I'd like to know which Democrat had a vision of the future that appealed to them.
The Answer: McCain
My query: You know McCain's a republican, don't you?
The Answer: Yep!
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"I pointed out that Bush wouldn't be running and I'd like to know which Democrat had a vision of the future that appealed to them.
The Answer: McCain
My query: You know McCain's a republican, don't you?
The Answer: Yep!
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ravinraven
Member
"I will always proudly support gun control for all nations which are not allies of the United States of America."
But it might be that with no gun control in country X, the people might boot out the unfriendly gov't and put a pro-liberty gov't in place.
And on the demize of the Dems. We do need a two-party system, methinks. We seem to be sliding more and more into a one party system as the Dems make themselves more useless to the concept of democracy by all of this hate mongering and loony-left appeal they generate.
Then you see a guy like Richardson, Gov of New Mexico. Is he a reasonable, pro-liberty type or is he posturing for a possible run for the WH by moving to the middle early?
rr
But it might be that with no gun control in country X, the people might boot out the unfriendly gov't and put a pro-liberty gov't in place.
And on the demize of the Dems. We do need a two-party system, methinks. We seem to be sliding more and more into a one party system as the Dems make themselves more useless to the concept of democracy by all of this hate mongering and loony-left appeal they generate.
Then you see a guy like Richardson, Gov of New Mexico. Is he a reasonable, pro-liberty type or is he posturing for a possible run for the WH by moving to the middle early?
rr
You misunderstand my point. Let me rephrase it in a way which is more clear. Gordon Fink described the current conflict as "a war for gun control," by which I assume he means that the purpose was to disarm the Hussein regime. I have no problem (generally) with disarming enemies of the United States. I wasn't referring to the citizens/subjects of enemy countries, but to the governments of such countries. We can (and will) argue over whether Iraq was a sufficient threat to justify the action we took there. I'm just trying to say that it isn't inconsistent to believe in the right of free people to own arms, and to believe that enemies of the United States should be disarmed.
And yes, I agree that the lack of gun control may well result in the booting-out of totalitarian goverments - that's part of the reason many gun-control advocates want to disarm us. A disarmed populace is a more easily controlled populace. Sadly, sometimes even armed populaces won't overthrow repressive government for one reason or another, but there's at least a chance if they're armed.
________________
-twency
Waitone
Member
No one mentioned the obvious. Ever since Bush was reelected the game plan has been to impeach him for something. Election fraud, war, intelligence, whatever. Makes no difference. Impeachment had to be on the record and progressing 12-18 months before the next election in order to have any effect on those election. The special prosecutor laid an egg in the Democrat's eyes because there was no clear link to Bush. The closest was to have been Cheney but even that fell through.
The latest move by Harry Reid is to put the corruption theme back on the table. It is a stunt. Frist is hot because Reid violated senate commity and didn't inform him of a forthcoming grandstand play. A strike out of the clear blue, no warning, no nothing. The halmark of a Clinton operative. The move smacks of desperation on the part of the Democrats. They gotta get something going on Bush corruption. Personally, I think they are counting down the last 5 or so rounds in their mag.
The latest move by Harry Reid is to put the corruption theme back on the table. It is a stunt. Frist is hot because Reid violated senate commity and didn't inform him of a forthcoming grandstand play. A strike out of the clear blue, no warning, no nothing. The halmark of a Clinton operative. The move smacks of desperation on the part of the Democrats. They gotta get something going on Bush corruption. Personally, I think they are counting down the last 5 or so rounds in their mag.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
No, they don't oppose war. They just support the other side.
JJpdxpinkpistols
Member
jcoiii said:
Go a source for these assertions? I seem to only find exactly the opposite:
The only "WMD" that was used against our troops were du shells, and there didn't seem to be many of those fired AT our troops. I find one assertion on Fox that we found some Sarin gas in artillery shells, but these were later dismissed as empty canisters that had escaped destruction by being lost after a plane went down in the late 80's. Unable to find source at the moment.
Another Apology In Iraq-Nukes Flap
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/22/politics/main564585.shtml
http://www.connectotel.com/marcus/niger_uranium.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/
I don't think it caused this. I think this was Reid flexing his muscles against the Nuclear Option.
He had one press conference on Friday Oct 28. there weren't multiples.
Hear, hear! That is the best statement yet in this whole thread.
I supported going to war in Iraq as my President assured me that Iraq had the capability to launch nuclear strikes against our country. They had WMD's in their possession, and they had mobile labs to avoid discovery. Essentially, I believed this:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm
but now, THIS seems to be the case:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001392546
Scott Ritter says that they didn't have any WMD, Same thing with the AEC inspectors, and the UN inspectors, and everyone else associated with inspecting.
I am unwilling to let them glide by on "Trust us". I did, and look where it got us. I have learned my lesson: two towers of folks dead doesn't change a dishonest person to honest. Sad that it has taken an additional 2000 soldier's lives to get that point across.
Similar to the Clinton years, I am forced to support the troops while despising their CIC.
- Status
