Comments on: “Unending war” and Ferdinand the bull http://neoneocon.com/2007/05/30/unending-war-and-ferdinand-the-bull/ Tue, 22 May 2012 06:44:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: studiotodd http://neoneocon.com/2007/05/30/unending-war-and-ferdinand-the-bull/#comment-36016 studiotodd Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:58:16 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/05/30/unending-war-and-ferdinand-the-bull/#comment-36016 Hell, I'll say it: The Republicans have no conscience. The Democrats have no balls. So, basically, we're screwed either way. Hell, I’ll say it:

The Republicans have no conscience.

The Democrats have no balls.

So, basically, we’re screwed either way.

]]> By: Lee http://neoneocon.com/2007/05/30/unending-war-and-ferdinand-the-bull/#comment-36015 Lee Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:07:26 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/05/30/unending-war-and-ferdinand-the-bull/#comment-36015 UB, correct, and the Democrats are doing neither. And actually you burned yourself by arguing around a circle. I'm just the one pointing it out. You keep saying the American people want a "timetable" for withdrawal. The Democrats have obviously abandoned that as a condition for funding the war. Dennis Kucinich is correctly pointing that out. Not that difficult to figure out, unless your rationalizations have you so twisted in a pretzel that you can't even remember what you've said yourself. So, either the Democrats (a): are defying the will of the people, or (b) the polls you continually bring up do not accurately reflect the will of the people, and the Democrats are relying on other feedback. In November, most Democrats and the lefties who put them in office were saying this was a mandate to reign in Bush and end the war as soon as possible. Dennis Kucinich correctly points out that can be done today, but most of his coleagues gave Bush a budget with no restrictions, and the war continues. If they were elected to end the war, why do they vote to continue it? Because obviously they have feedback besides the polls you keep harping on. Figure it out yet? I've only explained it to you about a half-dozen times, and used small words so you can understand. Now, it is up to you to refute the logic here. Dismissive "fantasy thinking" posts don't cut it. UB, correct, and the Democrats are doing neither. And actually you burned yourself by arguing around a circle. I’m just the one pointing it out.
You keep saying the American people want a “timetable” for withdrawal. The Democrats have obviously abandoned that as a condition for funding the war. Dennis Kucinich is correctly pointing that out. Not that difficult to figure out, unless your rationalizations have you so twisted in a pretzel that you can’t even remember what you’ve said yourself. So, either the Democrats (a): are defying the will of the people, or (b) the polls you continually bring up do not accurately reflect the will of the people, and the Democrats are relying on other feedback.
In November, most Democrats and the lefties who put them in office were saying this was a mandate to reign in Bush and end the war as soon as possible. Dennis Kucinich correctly points out that can be done today, but most of his coleagues gave Bush a budget with no restrictions, and the war continues. If they were elected to end the war, why do they vote to continue it? Because obviously they have feedback besides the polls you keep harping on. Figure it out yet? I’ve only explained it to you about a half-dozen times, and used small words so you can understand. Now, it is up to you to refute the logic here. Dismissive “fantasy thinking” posts don’t cut it.

]]> By: The Unknown Blogger http://neoneocon.com/2007/05/30/unending-war-and-ferdinand-the-bull/#comment-36006 The Unknown Blogger Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:21:16 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/05/30/unending-war-and-ferdinand-the-bull/#comment-36006 Lee, you are so out of control I just don't even know where to begin. <i>But Dennis Kucinich said tonight at the debate that’s what they WERE elected for...he says there is enough money “in the pipeline” now to bring the troops home. So, why do you insist they can’t, when they obviously can?</i> Because Kucinich says it in a debate makes it so? Makes it advisable policy? <i>(UB:)“What I think very few people support and even less “demand” is for all funding to be cut to the troops,…” So, in other words, you are now saying what I’ve been telling you all along.</i> Here you are having an "Ah-HA!" moment with yourself. Can you see that "timetable" and "cutting funding" are two different things? Lee, you are so out of control I just don’t even know where to begin.

But Dennis Kucinich said tonight at the debate that’s what they WERE elected for…he says there is enough money “in the pipeline” now to bring the troops home. So, why do you insist they can’t, when they obviously can?

Because Kucinich says it in a debate makes it so? Makes it advisable policy?

(UB:)“What I think very few people support and even less “demand” is for all funding to be cut to the troops,…”

So, in other words, you are now saying what I’ve been telling you all along.

Here you are having an “Ah-HA!” moment with yourself.

Can you see that “timetable” and “cutting funding” are two different things?

]]> By: studiotodd http://neoneocon.com/2007/05/30/unending-war-and-ferdinand-the-bull/#comment-36003 studiotodd Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:48:40 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/05/30/unending-war-and-ferdinand-the-bull/#comment-36003 I can hardly believe it! I finally found it! I found the blog where the most incredibly idiotic kool-aid swilling Bush-backing war-mongering death-loving nihilistic bloodthirsty paranoiac aggrandizing terror-peddling die-hard peace-haters gather to post belligerent and debunked nonsensical comments and bask in the warmth of their collective intransigent bloodlust disguised as "patriotism." Take a step back and look at yourselves honestly and objectively for a second...what a pathetic and disturbing bunch of creeps you are. All that bile and jingoistic hatred is going to kill you long before any terrorist might. My hope is that it happens before you are able to inflict any more damage to the reputation of this once respected nation. I can hardly believe it! I finally found it!

I found the blog where the most incredibly idiotic kool-aid swilling Bush-backing war-mongering death-loving nihilistic bloodthirsty paranoiac aggrandizing terror-peddling die-hard peace-haters gather to post belligerent and debunked nonsensical comments and bask in the warmth of their collective intransigent bloodlust disguised as “patriotism.”

Take a step back and look at yourselves honestly and objectively for a second…what a pathetic and disturbing bunch of creeps you are. All that bile and jingoistic hatred is going to kill you long before any terrorist might.

My hope is that it happens before you are able to inflict any more damage to the reputation of this once respected nation.

]]> By: Lee http://neoneocon.com/2007/05/30/unending-war-and-ferdinand-the-bull/#comment-35991 Lee Mon, 04 Jun 2007 01:29:48 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/05/30/unending-war-and-ferdinand-the-bull/#comment-35991 "What I think very few people support and even less "demand" is for all funding to be cut to the troops,..." So, in other words, you are now saying what I've been telling you all along. “What I think very few people support and even less “demand” is for all funding to be cut to the troops,…”

So, in other words, you are now saying what I’ve been telling you all along.

]]> By: Lee http://neoneocon.com/2007/05/30/unending-war-and-ferdinand-the-bull/#comment-35990 Lee Mon, 04 Jun 2007 01:24:57 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/05/30/unending-war-and-ferdinand-the-bull/#comment-35990 UB, But Dennis Kucinich said tonight at the debate that's what they WERE elected for, and cutting the funding is what they were elected to do. In fact, he correctly pointed out that not doing so makes it "their" (Congress') war, too, not just Bush's. He obviously wants "that". He says there is enough money "in the pipeline" now to bring the troops home. So, why do you insist they can't, when they obviously can? And "apparently" wanting a timetable for withdrawal is news to most Iraqis in Anbar and Diyala, where most of the fighting (by Iraqis themselves) against the terrorist holdouts are happening now, thanks to the support they get from American troops. UB,
But Dennis Kucinich said tonight at the debate that’s what they WERE elected for, and cutting the funding is what they were elected to do. In fact, he correctly pointed out that not doing so makes it “their” (Congress’) war, too, not just Bush’s. He obviously wants “that”. He says there is enough money “in the pipeline” now to bring the troops home. So, why do you insist they can’t, when they obviously can?
And “apparently” wanting a timetable for withdrawal is news to most Iraqis in Anbar and Diyala, where most of the fighting (by Iraqis themselves) against the terrorist holdouts are happening now, thanks to the support they get from American troops.

]]> By: The Unknown Blogger http://neoneocon.com/2007/05/30/unending-war-and-ferdinand-the-bull/#comment-35989 The Unknown Blogger Mon, 04 Jun 2007 01:07:05 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/05/30/unending-war-and-ferdinand-the-bull/#comment-35989 Lee, I'm not "insisting" the people are "demanding" anything - I'm simply arguing that they (and an apparent majority of the Iraqi parliament) "support" a timetable. What I think very few people support and even less "demand" is for all funding to be cut to the troops, for Congress to get tied up in a budget showdown/stalemate while we have troops engaged abroad. Besides the fact that no one wants that, the tactic would be political suicide for the Democrats, no one needs any "feedback" to tell them that. Remember what happened to Newt's "Revolution," and we weren't even at war then. Lee, I’m not “insisting” the people are “demanding” anything – I’m simply arguing that they (and an apparent majority of the Iraqi parliament) “support” a timetable.

What I think very few people support and even less “demand” is for all funding to be cut to the troops, for Congress to get tied up in a budget showdown/stalemate while we have troops engaged abroad.

Besides the fact that no one wants that, the tactic would be political suicide for the Democrats, no one needs any “feedback” to tell them that. Remember what happened to Newt’s “Revolution,” and we weren’t even at war then.

]]> By: OmegaPaladin http://neoneocon.com/2007/05/30/unending-war-and-ferdinand-the-bull/#comment-35975 OmegaPaladin Sun, 03 Jun 2007 08:07:36 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/05/30/unending-war-and-ferdinand-the-bull/#comment-35975 Bushwhacker, So, according to you, military personnel have no special grounds to talk about Iraq, and the chickenhawk line is just a personal attack. (Though I appreciate that you are not in favor of silencing people) Glad we got that cleared up. Moving on to a more serious note, I think your "creating terrorists" is an oversimplification of how terrorists are recruited. I'd also say that you might notice some progress in Iraq. Some of the trends there look promising, and the impression I get from Iraqi blogs and reporting on Iraqi opinion seems to be "Please leave us alone... but not yet." As for non-military costs of the war, I hear over and over that Bush wreaked the economy and is establishing a police state. You alleged something similar to the latter in your most recent post If recession and oppression isn't a price that is being paid, I don't know what is. I don't believe that either of these are actually happening, but leftists bring them up all of the time. Bushwhacker,

So, according to you, military personnel have no special grounds to talk about Iraq, and the chickenhawk line is just a personal attack. (Though I appreciate that you are not in favor of silencing people) Glad we got that cleared up.

Moving on to a more serious note, I think your “creating terrorists” is an oversimplification of how terrorists are recruited. I’d also say that you might notice some progress in Iraq. Some of the trends there look promising, and the impression I get from Iraqi blogs and reporting on Iraqi opinion seems to be “Please leave us alone… but not yet.”

As for non-military costs of the war, I hear over and over that Bush wreaked the economy and is establishing a police state. You alleged something similar to the latter in your most recent post If recession and oppression isn’t a price that is being paid, I don’t know what is. I don’t believe that either of these are actually happening, but leftists bring them up all of the time.

]]> By: Lee http://neoneocon.com/2007/05/30/unending-war-and-ferdinand-the-bull/#comment-35973 Lee Sun, 03 Jun 2007 02:55:02 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/05/30/unending-war-and-ferdinand-the-bull/#comment-35973 UB, what you fail to realize( it's really not that gd difficult to figure out) is that Congress will not give the people what you insist they are demanding. As I've said before, in accordance with the Constitution, they do not need a 2/3 majority to override a veto, they just need to obstruct the process by presenting budgets that will continue to be vetoed. That is not fantasy thinking, that is the law. If a budget is not signed into law, no budget exists. Spending stops. Can you read? Get it in your thick skull? If the purpose of electing Democrats was to end our involvement in Iraq as soon as possible, why are the Democrats giving Bush a budget that he can sign (with NO timetable) instead of cutting the funding and ending our involvement in Iraq as soon as possible, or forcing Bush to be "the obstructor" by not signing a budget WITH a timetable, which you insist is what the majority of Americans want? Because, they obviously have feedback other than "every" poll, which tells them they will be seen as not supporting the troops and will thus lose votes next election, instead of the other way(with Republicans losing votes). Sound, rational logic. And you're still running, or the logic is over your head. UB, what you fail to realize( it’s really not that gd difficult to figure out) is that Congress will not give the people what you insist they are demanding. As I’ve said before, in accordance with the Constitution, they do not need a 2/3 majority to override a veto, they just need to obstruct the process by presenting budgets that will continue to be vetoed. That is not fantasy thinking, that is the law. If a budget is not signed into law, no budget exists. Spending stops. Can you read? Get it in your thick skull? If the purpose of electing Democrats was to end our involvement in Iraq as soon as possible, why are the Democrats giving Bush a budget that he can sign (with NO timetable) instead of cutting the funding and ending our involvement in Iraq as soon as possible, or forcing Bush to be “the obstructor” by not signing a budget WITH a timetable, which you insist is what the majority of Americans want?
Because, they obviously have feedback other than “every” poll, which tells them they will be seen as not supporting the troops and will thus lose votes next election, instead of the other way(with Republicans losing votes).

Sound, rational logic. And you’re still running, or the logic is over your head.

]]> By: The Unknown Blogger http://neoneocon.com/2007/05/30/unending-war-and-ferdinand-the-bull/#comment-35971 The Unknown Blogger Sun, 03 Jun 2007 01:46:58 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/05/30/unending-war-and-ferdinand-the-bull/#comment-35971 Lee wrote: <i>"UB, so bring me back to reality and give me your answers to questions posed above. I’ll read them when I get home later tonight, that is, if you still aren’t running from them to aviod them."</i> Unfortunately your questions are based in your fantastical reasoning so answering them won't help. Recall that this all began when we asked you to tell us how you *knew* the American people were telling their representatives to vote against the Feingold-Reid bill. The fact is that *every* major poll (not just one "survey") on the question showed support for a timetable at about 60%. Yet you seem to be claiming that because they can't get the 2/3rds necessary to override a veto, that means they must be getting feedback from their constituents to vote against. Otherwise 6 out of 10 people would be marching on Washington. Fantasy thinking. Lee wrote:

“UB, so bring me back to reality and give me your answers to questions posed above. I’ll read them when I get home later tonight, that is, if you still aren’t running from them to aviod them.”

Unfortunately your questions are based in your fantastical reasoning so answering them won’t help. Recall that this all began when we asked you to tell us how you *knew* the American people were telling their representatives to vote against the Feingold-Reid bill.

The fact is that *every* major poll (not just one “survey”) on the question showed support for a timetable at about 60%.

Yet you seem to be claiming that because they can’t get the 2/3rds necessary to override a veto, that means they must be getting feedback from their constituents to vote against. Otherwise 6 out of 10 people would be marching on Washington.

Fantasy thinking.

]]>