Re: {OT} which would be worse...

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:05:02 -0500, badgolferman wrote:
[color=blue]
> For the liberals:
>
> ...if Jeb Bush wins the Presidency and appoints more Supreme Court
> Justices?
>
> or
>
> ...if Republicans win back Congress with an overwhelming majority?
>
>
> For the conservatives:
>
> ...if Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency?
>
> or
>
> ...if the current Congress cuts funding to the troops and forces them to
> leave the Middle East?
>
> ------------------------------------------------- This is just for fun.
> Hypothetical situations.[/color]



"force them to leave the Middle East"?

I agree with Glenn Beck. If Congress (Democrats) have their way, this will
turn into another Vietnam, with the biggest expenditure being Body Bags.

Do these people actually think before they speak, or what?

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:59:12 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@AE86.gts>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:05:02 -0500, badgolferman wrote:
>[color=green]
>> For the liberals:
>>
>> ...if Jeb Bush wins the Presidency and appoints more Supreme Court
>> Justices?
>>
>> or
>>
>> ...if Republicans win back Congress with an overwhelming majority?
>>
>>
>> For the conservatives:
>>
>> ...if Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency?
>>
>> or
>>
>> ...if the current Congress cuts funding to the troops and forces them to
>> leave the Middle East?
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------- This is just for fun.
>> Hypothetical situations.[/color]
>
>
>
>"force them to leave the Middle East"?
>
>I agree with Glenn Beck. If Congress (Democrats) have their way, this will
>turn into another Vietnam, with the biggest expenditure being Body Bags.
>
>Do these people actually think before they speak, or what?
>[/color]

No they don't.

It sure is great campaign fodder for the Republicans.

Now Hillary is flip floppin


--

Scott in Florida

"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
news:al28v2dc461umql8jues9fbrgk18hdtjj7@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> It sure is great campaign fodder for the Republicans.
>
> Now Hillary is flip floppin
>
>
> --
>
> Scott in Florida
>
>
>[/color]

She's trying to get your attention. Can't you tell when a woman wants you?

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
news:A2TIh.797$vV3.659@trndny09...[color=blue]
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:05:02 -0500, badgolferman wrote:
>[color=green]
>> For the liberals:
>>
>> ...if Jeb Bush wins the Presidency and appoints more Supreme Court
>> Justices?
>>
>> or
>>
>> ...if Republicans win back Congress with an overwhelming majority?
>>
>>
>> For the conservatives:
>>
>> ...if Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency?
>>
>> or
>>
>> ...if the current Congress cuts funding to the troops and forces them to
>> leave the Middle East?
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------- This is just for fun.
>> Hypothetical situations.[/color]
>
>
>
> "force them to leave the Middle East"?
>
> I agree with Glenn Beck. If Congress (Democrats) have their way, this will
> turn into another Vietnam, with the biggest expenditure being Body Bags.
>
> Do these people actually think before they speak, or what?[/color]

If you're referring to Glenn Beck, the answer is, clearly, "no."



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
news:A2TIh.797$vV3.659@trndny09...[color=blue]
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:05:02 -0500, badgolferman wrote:
> I agree with Glenn Beck. If Congress (Democrats) have their way, this will
> turn into another Vietnam, with the biggest expenditure being Body Bags.[/color]

If my house is cold, I can save dough by simply turning on Glenn Beck's
alleged show. The hot air rushing out of the tv will warm it up in no
time.

I don't understand his statement "...will turn into another Vietnam..."
If he doesn't realize that it's already another Vietnam, he's asleep. But
if our troops are not there, there'll be no need for body bags for them,
only for Iraqis, and they can pay for them. Our troops will no longer be
caught in the crossfire between the warring elements.

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:56:54 -0700, mack wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
> news:A2TIh.797$vV3.659@trndny09...[color=green]
>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:05:02 -0500, badgolferman wrote: I agree with
>> Glenn Beck. If Congress (Democrats) have their way, this will turn into
>> another Vietnam, with the biggest expenditure being Body Bags.[/color]
>
> If my house is cold, I can save dough by simply turning on Glenn Beck's
> alleged show. The hot air rushing out of the tv will warm it up in no
> time.
>
> I don't understand his statement "...will turn into another Vietnam..." If
> he doesn't realize that it's already another Vietnam, he's asleep. But
> if our troops are not there, there'll be no need for body bags for them,
> only for Iraqis, and they can pay for them. Our troops will no longer be
> caught in the crossfire between the warring elements.[/color]


Well, the Dems have attached a 'rider' onto the budget bill that analysts
feel sure will cause Bush to veto it.

This is absolute bullshit. Riders should be disallowed. If you have a
bill, the bill stands alone.

So, although the Democrats aren't *SAYING* they want to cut funding for
the troops, their actions say a lot more than words.

So, with less funding, troops will be ill-equipped, and unable to do the
job they were sent there to do.

And, why don't you ask the TROOPS what they think?! I talk to plenty, and
they say they are doing a necessary job there. This is from people who
have been on the FRONT LINE, not sitting in a chair typing at a keyboard.
Of all the people I've talked to, I'd say about 85% say the job they are
doing there is needed, and about 40% were looking FORWARD to going back!

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:08:01 -0500, dh wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
> news:A2TIh.797$vV3.659@trndny09...[color=green]
>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:05:02 -0500, badgolferman wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> For the liberals:
>>>
>>> ...if Jeb Bush wins the Presidency and appoints more Supreme Court
>>> Justices?
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> ...if Republicans win back Congress with an overwhelming majority?
>>>
>>>
>>> For the conservatives:
>>>
>>> ...if Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency?
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> ...if the current Congress cuts funding to the troops and forces them
>>> to leave the Middle East?
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------- This is just for fun.
>>> Hypothetical situations.[/color]
>>
>>
>>
>> "force them to leave the Middle East"?
>>
>> I agree with Glenn Beck. If Congress (Democrats) have their way, this
>> will turn into another Vietnam, with the biggest expenditure being Body
>> Bags.
>>
>> Do these people actually think before they speak, or what?[/color]
>
> If you're referring to Glenn Beck, the answer is, clearly, "no."[/color]

(I actually meant the Democrats...they certainly aren't thinking by
cutting funding to the people who need it. But what to they care if troops
die in Iraq? They'll get the popular vote here.)

On Mar 11, 11:56 am, "mack" <macke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@AE86.gts> wrote in message
>
> news:A2TIh.797$vV3.659@trndny09...
>[color=green]
> > On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:05:02 -0500, badgolferman wrote:
> > I agree with Glenn Beck. If Congress (Democrats) have their way, this will
> > turn into another Vietnam, with the biggest expenditure being Body Bags.[/color]
>
> If my house is cold, I can save dough by simply turning on Glenn Beck's
> alleged show. The hot air rushing out of the tv will warm it up in no
> time.
>
> I don't understand his statement "...will turn into another Vietnam..."
> If he doesn't realize that it's already another Vietnam, he's asleep. But
> if our troops are not there, there'll be no need for body bags for them,
> only for Iraqis, and they can pay for them. Our troops will no longer be
> caught in the crossfire between the warring elements.[/color]

Beck's just another talk show host that can say any ridiculous this he
wants to with nobody calling him on it, all while his lemming
followers drink it up. Of course he makes no sense, so what? as long
as it gets him some ratings. He'll just move on to the next
controversal topic next week. "Turn into another Vietnam" That's got
to be the dumbest thing I ever heard. Funny how all these right
wingers are trying to blame the Democrats for fucking up Iraq, as if
everything would be OK if everybody would just let Bush go on mis-
managing the war and somehow, magically, the current strategy will
start to work.

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
news:OTYIh.723$S06.82@trndny08...[color=blue]
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:08:01 -0500, dh wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
>> news:A2TIh.797$vV3.659@trndny09...[color=darkred]
>>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:05:02 -0500, badgolferman wrote:
>>>
>>>> For the liberals:
>>>>
>>>> ...if Jeb Bush wins the Presidency and appoints more Supreme Court
>>>> Justices?
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> ...if Republicans win back Congress with an overwhelming majority?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For the conservatives:
>>>>
>>>> ...if Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency?
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> ...if the current Congress cuts funding to the troops and forces them
>>>> to leave the Middle East?
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------- This is just for fun.
>>>> Hypothetical situations.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "force them to leave the Middle East"?
>>>
>>> I agree with Glenn Beck. If Congress (Democrats) have their way, this
>>> will turn into another Vietnam, with the biggest expenditure being Body
>>> Bags.
>>>
>>> Do these people actually think before they speak, or what?[/color]
>>
>> If you're referring to Glenn Beck, the answer is, clearly, "no."[/color]
>
> (I actually meant the Democrats...they certainly aren't thinking by
> cutting funding to the people who need it. But what to they care if troops
> die in Iraq? They'll get the popular vote here.)[/color]

If the troops are brought back to the US, why would they die?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
news:rRYIh.722$S06.677@trndny08...[color=blue]
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:56:54 -0700, mack wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
>> news:A2TIh.797$vV3.659@trndny09...[color=darkred]
>>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:05:02 -0500, badgolferman wrote: I agree with
>>> Glenn Beck. If Congress (Democrats) have their way, this will turn into
>>> another Vietnam, with the biggest expenditure being Body Bags.[/color]
>>
>> If my house is cold, I can save dough by simply turning on Glenn Beck's
>> alleged show. The hot air rushing out of the tv will warm it up in no
>> time.
>>
>> I don't understand his statement "...will turn into another Vietnam..."
>> If
>> he doesn't realize that it's already another Vietnam, he's asleep. But
>> if our troops are not there, there'll be no need for body bags for them,
>> only for Iraqis, and they can pay for them. Our troops will no longer be
>> caught in the crossfire between the warring elements.[/color]
>
>
> Well, the Dems have attached a 'rider' onto the budget bill that analysts
> feel sure will cause Bush to veto it.
>
> This is absolute bullshit. Riders should be disallowed. If you have a
> bill, the bill stands alone.
>
> So, although the Democrats aren't *SAYING* they want to cut funding for
> the troops, their actions say a lot more than words.
>
> So, with less funding, troops will be ill-equipped, and unable to do the
> job they were sent there to do.
>
> And, why don't you ask the TROOPS what they think?! I talk to plenty, and
> they say they are doing a necessary job there. This is from people who
> have been on the FRONT LINE, not sitting in a chair typing at a keyboard.
> Of all the people I've talked to, I'd say about 85% say the job they are
> doing there is needed, and about 40% were looking FORWARD to going back!
>[/color]

And how do you feel about Presidential "signing statements" if you have
problems with "riders"?

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 21:15:35 +0000, tak wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
> news:rRYIh.722$S06.677@trndny08...[color=green]
>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:56:54 -0700, mack wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
>>> news:A2TIh.797$vV3.659@trndny09...
>>>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:05:02 -0500, badgolferman wrote: I agree with
>>>> Glenn Beck. If Congress (Democrats) have their way, this will turn
>>>> into another Vietnam, with the biggest expenditure being Body Bags.
>>>
>>> If my house is cold, I can save dough by simply turning on Glenn Beck's
>>> alleged show. The hot air rushing out of the tv will warm it up in no
>>> time.
>>>
>>> I don't understand his statement "...will turn into another Vietnam..."
>>> If
>>> he doesn't realize that it's already another Vietnam, he's asleep.
>>> But if our troops are not there, there'll be no need for body bags for
>>> them, only for Iraqis, and they can pay for them. Our troops will no
>>> longer be caught in the crossfire between the warring elements.[/color]
>>
>>
>> Well, the Dems have attached a 'rider' onto the budget bill that
>> analysts feel sure will cause Bush to veto it.
>>
>> This is absolute bullshit. Riders should be disallowed. If you have a
>> bill, the bill stands alone.
>>
>> So, although the Democrats aren't *SAYING* they want to cut funding for
>> the troops, their actions say a lot more than words.
>>
>> So, with less funding, troops will be ill-equipped, and unable to do the
>> job they were sent there to do.
>>
>> And, why don't you ask the TROOPS what they think?! I talk to plenty,
>> and they say they are doing a necessary job there. This is from people
>> who have been on the FRONT LINE, not sitting in a chair typing at a
>> keyboard. Of all the people I've talked to, I'd say about 85% say the
>> job they are doing there is needed, and about 40% were looking FORWARD
>> to going back!
>>
>>[/color]
> And how do you feel about Presidential "signing statements" if you have
> problems with "riders"?[/color]


Yeah, I got's problems with those, too...

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 14:55:35 -0600, dh wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
> news:OTYIh.723$S06.82@trndny08...[color=green]
>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:08:01 -0500, dh wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
>>> news:A2TIh.797$vV3.659@trndny09...
>>>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:05:02 -0500, badgolferman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For the liberals:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...if Jeb Bush wins the Presidency and appoints more Supreme Court
>>>>> Justices?
>>>>>
>>>>> or
>>>>>
>>>>> ...if Republicans win back Congress with an overwhelming majority?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For the conservatives:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...if Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency?
>>>>>
>>>>> or
>>>>>
>>>>> ...if the current Congress cuts funding to the troops and forces them
>>>>> to leave the Middle East?
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------- This is just for
>>>>> fun. Hypothetical situations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "force them to leave the Middle East"?
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Glenn Beck. If Congress (Democrats) have their way, this
>>>> will turn into another Vietnam, with the biggest expenditure being
>>>> Body Bags.
>>>>
>>>> Do these people actually think before they speak, or what?
>>>
>>> If you're referring to Glenn Beck, the answer is, clearly, "no."[/color]
>>
>> (I actually meant the Democrats...they certainly aren't thinking by
>> cutting funding to the people who need it. But what to they care if
>> troops die in Iraq? They'll get the popular vote here.)[/color]
>
> If the troops are brought back to the US, why would they die?[/color]


BZZZZZT!!! Thanks for playing!

Who said anything about pulling them back? Nobody said anything about
pulling them back, the Dems are just going to cut funding.

Now, I could really piss a LOT of people off here, but I'm not going to.
YOU know what I'm saying.

So, in effect, the Dems are going to create another Vietnam. They should
know better.

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
news:PP%Ih.7315$t8.4429@trndny02...[color=blue]
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 14:55:35 -0600, dh wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
>> news:OTYIh.723$S06.82@trndny08...[color=darkred]
>>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:08:01 -0500, dh wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
>>>> news:A2TIh.797$vV3.659@trndny09...
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:05:02 -0500, badgolferman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For the liberals:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...if Jeb Bush wins the Presidency and appoints more Supreme Court
>>>>>> Justices?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...if Republicans win back Congress with an overwhelming majority?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the conservatives:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...if Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...if the current Congress cuts funding to the troops and forces them
>>>>>> to leave the Middle East?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------- This is just for
>>>>>> fun. Hypothetical situations.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "force them to leave the Middle East"?
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with Glenn Beck. If Congress (Democrats) have their way, this
>>>>> will turn into another Vietnam, with the biggest expenditure being
>>>>> Body Bags.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do these people actually think before they speak, or what?
>>>>
>>>> If you're referring to Glenn Beck, the answer is, clearly, "no."
>>>
>>> (I actually meant the Democrats...they certainly aren't thinking by
>>> cutting funding to the people who need it. But what to they care if
>>> troops die in Iraq? They'll get the popular vote here.)[/color]
>>
>> If the troops are brought back to the US, why would they die?[/color]
>
> BZZZZZT!!! Thanks for playing!
>
> Who said anything about pulling them back? Nobody said anything about
> pulling them back, the Dems are just going to cut funding.
>
> Now, I could really piss a LOT of people off here, but I'm not going to.
> YOU know what I'm saying.[/color]

You're saying that, if the Dems cut off funding that, rather than pull them
out (which the Dems would fund), the Administration will leave them in Iraq
without funding? To die?

Instead of getting your information about what the Dems are doing from Glenn
Beck, who clearly knows nothing about anything, you should probably get your
information from Democrats. You'll get more accurate information that way.

Most of the inflammatory things the Dems say or do are wholly artifacts of
Beck's, Limbaugh's, etc, fevered imaginations.

Look around here. Global warming as a religion? Hardly. I'm not giving up
Catholicism for it, nor are my friends, their religion, however, drives them
to consider their stewardship of the Earth. But you clowns seem to think
it's a religion, although you can't locate any actual members of that
church.

You can spend your days knocking down your own -or some fool's - strawman
arguments, or you can find out what's real. The choice is yours.
[color=blue]
> So, in effect, the Dems are going to create another Vietnam. They should
> know better.[/color]

Vietnam was lost when we started it.

Iraq was won before Dubya went in and lost as a result of the invasion.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]