Comments on: The Madness Continues

By: Dugger

Dugger — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:04:39 +0000

duros,

‘Dugger, could you elaborate on the things that have gone right part? I musta missed that. ‘

I’m not sure about the war. Probably would not have initiated for that reason. But I do not deny some good things have come from it. Rather than embarrass you or waste space, you do agree that the war has done some good, right (I asssume your argumnt was misstated and that you mean from your perspective the bad outweighs the good)?

Dugger,

“I am never known to quail at the fury of a gale, and I’m never, never sick at sea!

What, never?”

By: duros62

duros62 — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:04:31 +0000

Dugger, could you elaborate on the “things that have gone right” part? I musta missed that.

By: duros62

duros62 — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:04:05 +0000

Oh, that’s right, they have the Interweb now.

By: Dugger

Dugger — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:04:43 +0000

Elrod,

“Because Bush invaded Iraq with too few troops for the occupation, and no credible plan for stabilization, Bush is responsible for the things that have gone wrong since April 2003. ”

Half right. The first part is mere speculation. Many military, like Gen Casey, have warned against too alrge a footprint. But Bush is the CINC and he is responsible for the armed services performance – for the things that have gone wrong – to which you alluded- and the things that have gone right.

buma,

Just a downright killer point. Ruined my weekend. maybe.

Dugger

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:04:35 +0000

Then Bushwack insults Frank_D
Then Bushwack insults Frank_D
Then Bushwack insults Frank_D
Then Bushwack insults Frank_D

By: Bushwacked

Bushwacked — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 03:04:35 +0000

Neither one of you knows what checks are, do you? LOL

From Frank_ All I get is insults_D as usual. claiming noone else on this website knows anything but he and his wingnut pals. Whines about not being able to have an “intelligent exchange of ideas” then throws another bomb

As BB says “What a maroon!”

By: Bushwacked

Bushwacked — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 03:04:29 +0000

“Commenting on this blog has become a waste of pixels&
I m more likely to get insulted then I am to get an honest, thoughtful response& }

then Frank throws another bomb.

By: buma

buma — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 18:04:13 +0000

Why is it that dugger blames Bushhaters rather than Bush himself, for whatever bad news comes out of Iraq? Did Bushhaters start this thing? Did they not plan for what evolved? Did they spread falsehoods to ‘justify’ the invasion?

dugger, still haven’t gotten around to documenting those lies yet.

By: elrod

elrod — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 14:04:10 +0000

Dugger,
Because Bush invaded Iraq with too few troops for the occupation, and no credible plan for stabilization, Bush is responsible for the things that have gone wrong since April 2003. Had Iraq transformed itself into a peaceful, stable, liberal democracy then Bush would get the credit. In fact, I give Bush credit for handling Afghanistan as well as he has. There are serious flaws in Afghanistan, of course, but the situation is much better than Iraq.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:04:35 +0000

Neither one of you knows what “checks” are, do you? LOL

By: midderpidge

midderpidge — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 05:04:49 +0000

Bush may not write legislation but he sure likes to make additions with his signing declarations, FrankD.

By: Bushwacked

Bushwacked — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 03:04:52 +0000

The President cannot write legislation, or present it for a vote; neither can he make decisions regarding constitutionality
- He hasn’t done so great making executive decisions either and he obviously ignores the Constitution, when it comes to who makes and interprets laws.

I ll bet you have no idea what the checks refer to, and I ll bet not two of the posters on this blog do, either.

- There are few “checks with regard to the abuses of the current Republican Administration and the Republican Congress.
- Bush ignores the laws and the Republican Congress acquiesces. For example, they have made little or no real attempt to stop his total disregard of the laws governing wiretapping and surveillance of American citizens. In fact there are senators, such as Jeff Sessions and John Cornyn who have acted like attorneys for the defense when it came to hearings on this issue.
- Bush wants more money for the war in Iraq and the Republican Congress acquiesces. In fact, the only checks they know about are the ones they keep writing to sustain a bloated military budget and a war that we shouldn t have started in the first place.

Checks and balances? They are almost non-existent.
Oversight? Forget about it!

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 02:04:09 +0000

q – wolf: You have, and have always had, the power to lie or tell the truth.
Saying, “I told you so,” involves two important things: 1) Recommending against a course of action, for good reason, not just because that action was chosen by someone you despise; and 2) Some sort of evidence that the action has not succeeded, or has no good outcomes.
Your “I told you so’s” meet neither of the prerequisites.
Also, the conservatives do not control all three branches of government (with or without flaming capital letters). Congress has a bare majority of Republicans, about a half dozen or more (in the Senate alone) who are not conservative. There are now 4 possible strict constructionists on the Supreme Court, out of 9. The President cannot write legislation, or present it for a vote; neither can he make decisions regarding constitutionality.
It’s the “balance” in “checks and balances.”
I’ll bet you have no idea what the “checks” refer to, and I’ll bet not two of the posters on this blog do, either.
Run to The World Book Encyclopedia of the Internet WikiPedia, run!

By: Dugger

Dugger — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 01:04:55 +0000

What divination re my good old buddy hatcheck (versus hating left)?

Dugger

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 23:04:18 +0000

Your going-on about treason is just stuff you are making up.

I know. You told me to draw my own conclusions and I did.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 23:04:00 +0000

the divination of (always bad) motive part is where the hate comes in.

You find that divination exactly where in Mr. Factcheck’s observations?

By: Dugger

Dugger — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:04:55 +0000

Quaker,

The disagreeing part is fine, the divination of (always bad) motive part is where the hate comes in. Your going-on about treason is just stuff you are making up.

Quick,

You obviously think we/I overreact, but this is admittedly a partisan web site. Thats not hidden. Go back and compare how many times an attack in Iraq is portrayed as bad moral thing or a despicable act period – versus evidence of the venality or madness of Bush and neocons. Then you tell me. Tragedy after tragdedy is not treated as a tragedy per se, but a bad thing for and by the Bushies.

Dugger

By: duros62

duros62 — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:04:31 +0000

The true definition of a moonbat.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:04:19 +0000

And since Bush-hate is the center of their universe, – well you draw your own conclsuions.

OK, I will.

However, I’m having trouble choosing between two conclusions. I think you’re implying that disagreeing with (or “hating”) Bush leads to treasonous thinking or that disagreeing with Bush is in itself treason.

You do recognize that factcheck is offering up a parody of the fake assurances we’ve been given in the past about the ongoing violence in Iraq, right?

By: Dugger

Dugger — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:04:51 +0000

“Every suicide bomber leaves us closer to victory. ”

Or evidently, every suicide bombing is a domestic political victory for compassionate progressive Bush haters. And since Bush-hate is the center of their universe, – well you draw your own conclsuions.

Dugger