Quote :

"gets entangled arguing with with anonymous internet folks about which side was more stubborn"

no i'm just trying to get some of you morons to admit that both sides were stubborn...i could care less which side was more stubborn, you partisan sheep just keep your partisan blinders on

why are you hiding behind an alias anyway? is a screenname not enough for your scared ass to hide behind?

alias trolls are pathetic, your opinions dont matter

5/3/2007 9:04:50 PM

I'm not sure what you are talking about. I have no clue who you are, other than your posts. I don't know anyone here. Everyone is "hiding" to me. Whats your problem? Why don't you stick to the topics instead of worrying about who is who.

5/3/2007 9:39:25 PM

why dont you stick to one screenname, alias

Quote :

"Account abuse will not be tolerated under ANY circumstances. As we have limited the accounts per user to ONE, we presume that our users will value their sole account at The Wolf Web"

5/3/2007 10:03:03 PM

ok!

5/3/2007 10:04:19 PM

Ok, TreeTwista10 and Blind Hate, take a breath...


As usual, I took the time out to write out my position in full, while answering other concerns, and it's completely fucking ignored.

The following things do not matter... at all:

1) Who backed out of the meeting, Pelosi and the Dems or Bush - Seriously, they're idealogical opposites on this issue. They weren't going to get together PERIOD. Who cares who was ultimately responsible for it?

2) Whether someone is using an alias - All of you have been on here long enough to know debating on TWW is next to useless. If anyone is using aliases out here, more power to them. Such individuals are toolbags beyond my understanding, and I subsequently have no real inclination to find any aliases even IF they existed.

3) TreeTwista10


That is all.

[Edited on May 3, 2007 at 10:30 PM. Reason : meh]

5/3/2007 10:29:46 PM

4) Erios

Quote :

"Who cares who was ultimately responsible for it?"

Who was even trying to find that out?

5/3/2007 10:37:03 PM

Quote :

"last time i checked, bush is the one who should be running the war."

Quote :

"The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that Congress and the President share in making decisions that may get the U.S. involved in hostilities. Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days (Sec. 5(b)). Following an official request by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an additional 30 days (presumably when "unavoidable military necessity" requires additional action for a safe withdrawal)."

-wiki

If not for the actions of a previous congress that had more members of the same party as the president, back when he made sure to mention 9/11 & iraq in the same breath every chance he got, the war powers act which was made in large response the Vietnam might still have it such that the current congress could have more input.

I heard an interesting story on NPR last night. About how their was a bill that funded the troops but also required a timetable for withdrawal, that was opposed as being unpatriotic and not “standing by our troops” rather than the modern phrase “support our troops.”

But if the gutted war powers act isn’t enough, there’s always this gem to show that congress should get some say.

”Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war.”

And bush was for Timetables for withdrawal when Clinton was pres.

5/4/2007 6:44:54 AM

^^ The point is [user]TreeTwist10[/user] that you have a distinct ability to degrade a thread down to semantics, name-calling, and idealogically vague statements. You do this regularly and often single-handedly. You are a detriment to this thread, considering that yuo were reduced to calling certain users "aliases."

Seriously get the fuck out.

5/4/2007 7:39:48 AM

Quote :

"All of you have been on here long enough to know debating on TWW is next to useless"

[user]Eriors[/user] too bad you havent been on TWW long enough to know to shut your gay ass mouth up when shit doesnt involve you

5/4/2007 10:23:20 AM

Quote :

"As usual, I took the time out to write out my position in full, while answering other concerns, and it's completely fucking ignored."

I apologize Erios for not responding, but I did read your post, and agree nearly exactly with your stance, so I didn't comment on it.

Quote :

"we tried to give the Bush Administration some leeway. We've tried supporting the open ended committment to rebuild Iraq. We've tried relying on the Bush Administration to appropriately conduct this war. We've tried to understand the same tired, re-hashed, "We've turned the corner," "Stay the course," reasonable-fucking proposal nonsense for the last four years."

What is particularly annoying to me, is that people like TreeTwista are always quick to point out that X people voted for this war, when that isn't really a fair statement. The war everyone voted for, was the one this administration sold us, that is, a quick toppling of the regime, being greeted as liberators, starting a democratic nation, and being out of their quick. That's what was sold. Then, this administration, realizing the dream they sold was bunk, has tried again and again to say that this is going to be a long term thing and to be patient. For me, I would be fine with them making that statement, if they also said we will measure the progress in this way, we have X amount of dollars we will spend, and if this plan doesn't work we'll come home.

It seems the biggest bit of sell terror by this admin job being done with this war is the "if we leave, they follow us home" bullshit, or the Middle East will become a powder keg. Those are fair statements to make too, but does anyone honestly know? Just like the domino theory? Why can't we pull out now, give our troops a break, and if things get terribly worse, we go back in. Seems like it's easier to keep a force there, and keep the supplies of oil safe so oil execs can get richer and richer, than have a potential disruption in oil. That's what this all boils down to in my opinion. And if you can get the taxpayers to foot the bill rather than big oil, well thats just spectacular.

5/4/2007 10:23:52 AM

The “authorization” bill that bypassed the war powers act for this war declared by the executive rather than the legislator is being considered for repeal, just as was done with the “authorization” bill for Vietnam.

5/4/2007 6:52:31 PM

^^ No worries. I was annoyed to see another page and a half of absolute nonsense after describing my position to a great degree. There's nothing quite like trying to add a dose of sanity to TWW, only to see the stream of BS keep flowing just as strong as ever.

^ Good. You can't expect Congress, or the American people, to continue writing checks for a war with no discernable end in sight, no budget, and nothing approaching a strong majority of support. Bush sold us on this war, so I hold him and his cronies responsible for the catastrophe that ensued.

He calls us unpatriotic for not supporting the troops. I call him an an idealogically-driven, uncompromising, short-term thinking, all-around inept leader. Everything he says is either rehearsed down to the letter or delivered at on a 4th grade reading level. His appointed officers have fouled up more operations and created so many controversies that he's putting Bill Clinton to shame.

Seriously, if I bet you that we'd be able to tag the next president for more jokes than Clinton, would anyone have taken me up on it?

5/4/2007 7:25:16 PM

I actually thought a republican last night had a great and simple idea. Let the iraqis vote if they want us to stay. Its simple and brillant. If they vote yes, we can show support. if they vote no, we have an honorable way to leave, show we respect the iraqi peoples wishes, and then have no responsiblity for when the shit hits the fan...bc we gave them what they wanted. I love it. Its a great simple idea. The ole K.I.S.S. plan.

5/4/2007 7:28:47 PM

So there are some rumors floating around the (liberal?) bloggosphere that there has been some talk in the Bush camp of agreeing to a compromised funding bill, then issuing signing statements to side step anything that he doesn't like about it.

I tend to think that this won't happen, but it would make for some interesting political sport if you ask me.

5/10/2007 8:50:51 AM

He has been wanting a line item veto for some time now.

Legislators are supposed to control the money, not the executive, and he’s never seemed too happy with that separation of powers.

5/10/2007 9:00:09 AM