Petition to impeach Obama, if he wins the election

That80sGuy wrote:
> In message news:Xns9B085F64C80ABdewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@130.133.1.4, theBZA
> <dewey3kNOSPAM.DeleteThis@gmail.com> done wrote:
>
>> That80sGuy <clark.DeleteThis@griswold.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns9B07D0029C749That80sGuy@198.186.190.61:
>>
>>> In message news:66506051-29c4-4f10-9700-
>>> 4ea6f1ef9685.DeleteThis@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com, bmoore.DeleteThis@nyx.net done wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Ah, sounds like you're one of those kookie libertarians.
>>>>> Yeah. Like Thomas Jefferson.
>>>> No, he wasn't kookie.
>>> No libertarians are.
>>>
>> Bob Barr?
>
> Cranky, yes. Kooky (you gotta love someone who accuses someone of being
> "kooky," and yet they misspell "kooky."), no.
>
> Is ending the Iraq war (which Obama won't do) "kooky"?
> Is cutting spending (which McCain won't do) "kooky"?
> Is enforcing immigration law (which neither will do) "kooky"?
>

I thought he meant Edd Byrnes.

mario in victoria
--
comb through it
 >> Stay informed about: Petition to impeach Obama, if he wins the election 

On 2008-08-28 10:51:34 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman.RemoveThis@conversent.net> said:

> In news:2008082808363716807-phil@nomailcom,
> Phil <phil.RemoveThis@nomail.com> mused:
>> On 2008-08-27 21:52:41 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman.RemoveThis@conversent.net>
>> said:
>>> Kerry himself said that he was before the war before he was
>>> against it. There's not much I can add to that.
>>
>> Sure there is. It's quite simple. You can say that the war
>> Congress........
>
> Just jumping in here to note that you've taken my comment out of
> context. But lets go on........

You suggested there was nothing more to be said, and implied that the
only possible interpretation of Kerry's statement was an example of
waffling, flip-flopping, or whatever other ridiculous term people use
nowadays when circumstances force someone to change their mind. I
responded by saying there was plenty more you could add, if you wanted
to.
>
>> authorized the president to wage is not the one he is
>> waging; that authorization was conditional and the conditions
>> have not been met, therefore the authorization is null and void.
>
> Then why has the democratic Congress not lived up to its promise to
> end the war if it were voted into the majority, especially if
> there's no valid authorization? Only Congress can fund a war, and
> so why does the democratic Congress continue to fund it?

I've often wondered that myself, and I can only conclude that some
Democrats are more interested in working with their counterparts across
the aisle than most Republicans are. If you look at the breakdown of
most votes, you'll find the Republicans voting in a unanimous block,
with Democrats mostly, but not exlcusively, voting in a block. Combine
that with the slim majority the Democrats hold, and a President who
announces in advance that he'll refuse to sign anything Democrats put
forth if it differs from what he himself wants, and you've got the
situation we have today. However, since Republicans are dropping like
flies from Congress, I expect this situation to change with, perhaps,
some new majority leadership, no matter who ends up in the White House.

>
>> You can say
>
> And you can say......... and so on, but I've always found it to be
> more effective if I get to actually say what I want to say, and I
> let you say what you want to say, and so on.....

I agree. But you said there was nothing much you could add. You could
add the truth.
>
>> that the authorizaton was given by members of
>> Congress of both parties who did not completely read the bill
>> through, and who instead believed claims that later proved to be
>> lies. You can say that Kerry is only one of many members of
>> Congress that have expressed regret at having voted as they did,
>> but is disproportionately singled out for ridicule when members
>> of Congress change their minds all the time.
>
> I could say all of that, but I haven't.

No, but you probably should have, because it was the truth.

>> Of course, if it's not okay to change your mind, maybe you'd
>> like to discuss the voting record of John McCain.
>
> I think it's perfectly fine for those in power to change their
> minds, as long as there's some rationale for it. Are you under the
> impression that I think otherwise? But if we're going to pick on
> politicians for saying silly things, which of course, the dems love
> to do (and God knows that some repubs have given them plenty of
> ammunition), then I think it's perfectly fine to point out how silly
> it was for a dem to say something like 'I was for it before I was
> against it'. DUH! Even Kerry admitted that it was a dumb thing to
> say. Get a sense of humor, will ya?

Sure it was dumb, but mostly because it left an opening for some rather
inappropriatey cruel ridicule in a serious situation.
 >> Stay informed about: Petition to impeach Obama, if he wins the election 

In news:2008082900154216807-phil@nomailcom,
Phil <phil.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> mused:
> On 2008-08-28 10:51:34 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman.TakeThisOut@conversent.net>
> said:
>> In news:2008082808363716807-phil@nomailcom,
>> Phil <phil.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> mused:
>>> On 2008-08-27 21:52:41 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman.TakeThisOut@conversent.net>
>>> said:
>>>> Kerry himself said that he was before the war before he was
>>>> against it. There's not much I can add to that.
>>>
>>> Sure there is. It's quite simple. You can say that the war
>>> Congress........
>>
>> Just jumping in here to note that you've taken my comment out of
>> context. But lets go on........
>
> You suggested there was nothing more to be said, and implied
> that the only possible interpretation of Kerry's statement was
> an example of waffling, flip-flopping, or whatever other
> ridiculous term people use nowadays when circumstances force
> someone to change their mind. I responded by saying there was
> plenty more you could add, if you wanted to.

Most of that is in yoour mind. While I explicitly said that there
was nothing more to be said, my suggestion was that people say
stupid things from time to time.

>>> authorized the president to wage is not the one he is
>>> waging; that authorization was conditional and the conditions
>>> have not been met, therefore the authorization is null and
>>> void.
>>
>> Then why has the democratic Congress not lived up to its
>> promise to end the war if it were voted into the majority,
>> especially if there's no valid authorization? Only Congress
>> can fund a war, and so why does the democratic Congress
>> continue to fund it?
>
> I've often wondered that myself, and I can only conclude that
> some Democrats are more interested in working with their
> counterparts across the aisle than most Republicans are. If you
> look at the breakdown of most votes, you'll find the Republicans
> voting in a unanimous block, with Democrats mostly, but not
> exlcusively, voting in a block. Combine that with the slim
> majority the Democrats hold, and a President who announces in
> advance that he'll refuse to sign anything Democrats put forth
> if it differs from what he himself wants, and you've got the
> situation we have today. However, since Republicans are dropping
> like flies from Congress, I expect this situation to change
> with, perhaps, some new majority leadership, no matter who ends
> up in the White House.

If you are correct, then the Democrats are more hypocritical than
the Republicans, and the promise they make to the voters means
almost nothing. The whole promise of the 2005 campaigns was that
putting the Dems in power would bring the troops home. That was
their promise to the American people. To then try to say that once
they got in poser they were more willing to abandon the central
promise of the election so that they could get along with their
adversaries, which it might very well be true, isn't much to brag
about.

Interestingly, you just described the Dems approach to foreign
policy as well. It certainly seems as though he Dems would rather
be liked by our adversaries, than protect us from them.


>>> You can say
>>
>> And you can say......... and so on, but I've always found it to
>> be more effective if I get to actually say what I want to say,
>> and I let you say what you want to say, and so on.....
>
> I agree. But

No "buts'. You either agree, or you do not.

> you said there was nothing much you could add. You
> could add the truth.

There is nothing in what I said that was either untrue, or that
implied anything that was untrue, or misleading. And certainly
nothing that should cause you to tell me what I would say. It's all
of this mind reading in which you engage that seems to get you into
trouble.



>>> that the authorizaton was given by members of
>>> Congress of both parties who did not completely read the bill
>>> through, and who instead believed claims that later proved to
>>> be lies. You can say that Kerry is only one of many members of
>>> Congress that have expressed regret at having voted as they
>>> did, but is disproportionately singled out for ridicule when
>>> members of Congress change their minds all the time.
>>
>> I could say all of that, but I haven't.
>
> No, but you probably should have, because it was the truth.

More mind reading noted.


>>> Of course, if it's not okay to change your mind, maybe you'd
>>> like to discuss the voting record of John McCain.
>>
>> I think it's perfectly fine for those in power to change their
>> minds, as long as there's some rationale for it. Are you under
>> the impression that I think otherwise? But if we're going to
>> pick on politicians for saying silly things, which of course,
>> the dems love to do (and God knows that some repubs have given
>> them plenty of ammunition), then I think it's perfectly fine to
>> point out how silly it was for a dem to say something like 'I
>> was for it before I was against it'. DUH! Even Kerry admitted
>> that it was a dumb thing to say. Get a sense of humor, will ya?
>
> Sure it was dumb, but mostly because it left an opening for some
> rather inappropriatey cruel ridicule in a serious situation.

Cruel?
 >> Stay informed about: Petition to impeach Obama, if he wins the election 

On 2008-08-29 08:04:41 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman.DeleteThis@conversent.net> said:

> Most of that is in yoour mind. While I explicitly said that there
> was nothing more to be said, my suggestion was that people say
> stupid things from time to time.

And sometimes they say nothing when they shouldn't.
>
>>>> authorized the president to wage is not the one he is
>>>> waging; that authorization was conditional and the conditions
>>>> have not been met, therefore the authorization is null and
>>>> void.
>>>
>>> Then why has the democratic Congress not lived up to its
>>> promise to end the war if it were voted into the majority,
>>> especially if there's no valid authorization? Only Congress
>>> can fund a war, and so why does the democratic Congress
>>> continue to fund it?
>>
>> I've often wondered that myself, and I can only conclude that
>> some Democrats are more interested in working with their
>> counterparts across the aisle than most Republicans are. If you
>> look at the breakdown of most votes, you'll find the Republicans
>> voting in a unanimous block, with Democrats mostly, but not
>> exlcusively, voting in a block. Combine that with the slim
>> majority the Democrats hold, and a President who announces in
>> advance that he'll refuse to sign anything Democrats put forth
>> if it differs from what he himself wants, and you've got the
>> situation we have today. However, since Republicans are dropping
>> like flies from Congress, I expect this situation to change
>> with, perhaps, some new majority leadership, no matter who ends
>> up in the White House.
>
> If you are correct, then the Democrats are more hypocritical than
> the Republicans, and the promise they make to the voters means
> almost nothing. The whole promise of the 2005 campaigns was that
> putting the Dems in power would bring the troops home. That was
> their promise to the American people. To then try to say that once
> they got in poser they were more willing to abandon the central
> promise of the election so that they could get along with their
> adversaries, which it might very well be true, isn't much to brag
> about.

You asked a question, I answered it. I wasn't bragging.

>
> Interestingly, you just described the Dems approach to foreign
> policy as well. It certainly seems as though he Dems would rather
> be liked by our adversaries, than protect us from them.

Of course, if we just kill everyone then we won't have any adversaries.
>
>
>>>> You can say
>>>
>>> And you can say......... and so on, but I've always found it to
>>> be more effective if I get to actually say what I want to say,
>>> and I let you say what you want to say, and so on.....
>>
>> I agree. But
>
> No "buts'. You either agree, or you do not.

Pretty facile there. I agreed that your statement was true, but it
wasn't all that ought to have been said, unless one is trying to
mislead the reader.

>
>> you said there was nothing much you could add. You
>> could add the truth.
>
> There is nothing in what I said that was either untrue, or that
> implied anything that was untrue, or misleading. And certainly
> nothing that should cause you to tell me what I would say.
> It's all
> of this mind reading in which you engage that seems to get you into
> trouble.

What trouble am I in? I'm not reading your mind. I'm saying a moral
person would not say there is nothing more to be said.
>
>
>
>>>> that the authorizaton was given by members of
>>>> Congress of both parties who did not completely read the bill
>>>> through, and who instead believed claims that later proved to
>>>> be lies. You can say that Kerry is only one of many members of
>>>> Congress that have expressed regret at having voted as they
>>>> did, but is disproportionately singled out for ridicule when
>>>> members of Congress change their minds all the time.
>>>
>>> I could say all of that, but I haven't.
>>
>> No, but you probably should have, because it was the truth.
>
> More mind reading noted.

I cannot begin to read your mind, and the only thing that surpasses my
inability to do so is my interest in doing so. Your moral sense is
another matter entirely.

>
>
>>>> Of course, if it's not okay to change your mind, maybe you'd
>>>> like to discuss the voting record of John McCain.
>>>
>>> I think it's perfectly fine for those in power to change their
>>> minds, as long as there's some rationale for it. Are you under
>>> the impression that I think otherwise? But if we're going to
>>> pick on politicians for saying silly things, which of course,
>>> the dems love to do (and God knows that some repubs have given
>>> them plenty of ammunition), then I think it's perfectly fine to
>>> point out how silly it was for a dem to say something like 'I
>>> was for it before I was against it'. DUH! Even Kerry admitted
>>> that it was a dumb thing to say. Get a sense of humor, will ya?
>>
>> Sure it was dumb, but mostly because it left an opening for some
>> rather inappropriatey cruel ridicule in a serious situation.
>
> Cruel?

Cruel as in inflicting needless suffering for enjoyment's sake, when
there are more important matters at hand. Like telling the truth.
 >> Stay informed about: Petition to impeach Obama, if he wins the election 

In news:2008083001241482212-phil@nomailcom,
Phil <phil DeleteThis @nomail.com> mused:
> On 2008-08-29 08:04:41 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman DeleteThis @conversent.net>
> said:
>> Most of that is in yoour mind. While I explicitly said that
>> there was nothing more to be said, my suggestion was that
>> people say stupid things from time to time.
>
> And sometimes they say nothing when they shouldn't.

Your point?

>>>>> authorized the president to wage is not the one he is
>>>>> waging; that authorization was conditional and the conditions
>>>>> have not been met, therefore the authorization is null and
>>>>> void.
>>>>
>>>> Then why has the democratic Congress not lived up to its
>>>> promise to end the war if it were voted into the majority,
>>>> especially if there's no valid authorization? Only Congress
>>>> can fund a war, and so why does the democratic Congress
>>>> continue to fund it?
>>>
>>> I've often wondered that myself, and I can only conclude that
>>> some Democrats are more interested in working with their
>>> counterparts across the aisle than most Republicans are. If you
>>> look at the breakdown of most votes, you'll find the
>>> Republicans voting in a unanimous block, with Democrats
>>> mostly, but not exlcusively, voting in a block. Combine that
>>> with the slim majority the Democrats hold, and a President who
>>> announces in advance that he'll refuse to sign anything
>>> Democrats put forth if it differs from what he himself wants,
>>> and you've got the situation we have today. However, since
>>> Republicans are dropping like flies from Congress, I expect
>>> this situation to change with, perhaps, some new majority
>>> leadership, no matter who ends up in the White House.
>>
>> If you are correct, then the Democrats are more hypocritical
>> than the Republicans, and the promise they make to the voters
>> means almost nothing. The whole promise of the 2005 campaigns
>> was that putting the Dems in power would bring the troops home.
>> That was their promise to the American people. To then try to
>> say that once they got in poser they were more willing to
>> abandon the central promise of the election so that they could
>> get along with their adversaries, which it might very well be
>> true, isn't much to brag about.
>
> You asked a question, I answered it. I wasn't bragging.

You tried to "brag" about how the Dems were more willing to reach
across the isle than the Reps.



>> Interestingly, you just described the Dems approach to foreign
>> policy as well. It certainly seems as though he Dems would
>> rather be liked by our adversaries, than protect us from them.
>
> Of course, if we just kill everyone then we won't have any
> adversaries.

Ahhhhhhh, sarcasim. The last refusge of someone who knows they
hold a losing hand.



>>>>> You can say
>>>>
>>>> And you can say......... and so on, but I've always found it
>>>> to be more effective if I get to actually say what I want to
>>>> say, and I let you say what you want to say, and so on.....
>>>
>>> I agree. But
>>
>> No "buts'. You either agree, or you do not.
>
> Pretty facile there. I agreed that your statement was true, but
> it wasn't all that ought to have been said, unless one is trying
> to mislead the reader.
>
>>
>>> you said there was nothing much you could add. You
>>> could add the truth.
>>
>> There is nothing in what I said that was either untrue, or that
>> implied anything that was untrue, or misleading. And certainly
>> nothing that should cause you to tell me what I would say.
>> It's all
>> of this mind reading in which you engage that seems to get you
>> into trouble.
>
> What trouble am I in? I'm not reading your mind. I'm saying a
> moral person would not say there is nothing more to be said.

In terms of what Kerry said, and the fact that it was silly, there
wasn't.


>>>>> that the authorizaton was given by members of
>>>>> Congress of both parties who did not completely read the bill
>>>>> through, and who instead believed claims that later proved to
>>>>> be lies. You can say that Kerry is only one of many members
>>>>> of Congress that have expressed regret at having voted as
>>>>> they did, but is disproportionately singled out for ridicule
>>>>> when members of Congress change their minds all the time.
>>>>
>>>> I could say all of that, but I haven't.
>>>
>>> No, but you probably should have, because it was the truth.
>>
>> More mind reading noted.
>
> I cannot begin to read your mind, and the only thing that
> surpasses my inability to do so is my interest in doing so. Your
> moral sense is another matter entirely.

Then why do you engage in the imoral tactic of trying to tell me
what I should say? Why not just stick to what you should say?


>>>>> Of course, if it's not okay to change your mind, maybe you'd
>>>>> like to discuss the voting record of John McCain.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's perfectly fine for those in power to change their
>>>> minds, as long as there's some rationale for it. Are you
>>>> under the impression that I think otherwise? But if we're
>>>> going to pick on politicians for saying silly things, which
>>>> of course, the dems love to do (and God knows that some
>>>> repubs have given them plenty of ammunition), then I think
>>>> it's perfectly fine to point out how silly it was for a dem
>>>> to say something like 'I was for it before I was against it'.
>>>> DUH! Even Kerry admitted that it was a dumb thing to say. Get
>>>> a sense of humor, will ya?
>>>
>>> Sure it was dumb, but mostly because it left an opening for
>>> some rather inappropriatey cruel ridicule in a serious
>>> situation.
>>
>> Cruel?
>
> Cruel as in inflicting needless suffering for enjoyment's sake,
> when there are more important matters at hand. Like telling the
> truth.

You've got to be kidding, right? so in your world, no jokes of
pokes or prods should ever be made at anyone's expense until all of
the problems of the world are solved? Tell me that you're kidding.
 >> Stay informed about: Petition to impeach Obama, if he wins the election 

On 2008-09-02 07:47:00 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman RemoveThis @conversent.net> said:

> In news:2008083001241482212-phil@nomailcom,
> Phil <phil RemoveThis @nomail.com> mused:
>> On 2008-08-29 08:04:41 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman RemoveThis @conversent.net>
>> said:
>>> Most of that is in yoour mind. While I explicitly said that
>>> there was nothing more to be said, my suggestion was that
>>> people say stupid things from time to time.
>>
>> And sometimes they say nothing when they shouldn't.
>
> Your point?

I doubt I'll get anywhere by repeating myself, but sggesting there was
nothing more to be said, and implying that that was a universal, was
both untrue and not the most moral of statements. Stating that you
didn't want to say anything more would have been better.
>
>>>>>> authorized the president to wage is not the one he is
>>>>>> waging; that authorization was conditional and the conditions
>>>>>> have not been met, therefore the authorization is null and
>>>>>> void.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why has the democratic Congress not lived up to its
>>>>> promise to end the war if it were voted into the majority,
>>>>> especially if there's no valid authorization? Only Congress
>>>>> can fund a war, and so why does the democratic Congress
>>>>> continue to fund it?
>>>>
>>>> I've often wondered that myself, and I can only conclude that
>>>> some Democrats are more interested in working with their
>>>> counterparts across the aisle than most Republicans are. If you
>>>> look at the breakdown of most votes, you'll find the
>>>> Republicans voting in a unanimous block, with Democrats
>>>> mostly, but not exlcusively, voting in a block. Combine that
>>>> with the slim majority the Democrats hold, and a President who
>>>> announces in advance that he'll refuse to sign anything
>>>> Democrats put forth if it differs from what he himself wants,
>>>> and you've got the situation we have today. However, since
>>>> Republicans are dropping like flies from Congress, I expect
>>>> this situation to change with, perhaps, some new majority
>>>> leadership, no matter who ends up in the White House.
>>>
>>> If you are correct, then the Democrats are more hypocritical
>>> than the Republicans, and the promise they make to the voters
>>> means almost nothing. The whole promise of the 2005 campaigns
>>> was that putting the Dems in power would bring the troops home.
>>> That was their promise to the American people. To then try to
>>> say that once they got in poser they were more willing to
>>> abandon the central promise of the election so that they could
>>> get along with their adversaries, which it might very well be
>>> true, isn't much to brag about.
>>
>> You asked a question, I answered it. I wasn't bragging.
>
> You tried to "brag" about how the Dems were more willing to reach
> across the isle than the Reps.

I stated a fact while addressing the question of why the supposedly
Democratic Congress has not accomplished more of their stated agenda.

>>> Interestingly, you just described the Dems approach to foreign
>>> policy as well. It certainly seems as though he Dems would
>>> rather be liked by our adversaries, than protect us from them.
>>
>> Of course, if we just kill everyone then we won't have any
>> adversaries.
>
> Ahhhhhhh, sarcasim. The last refusge of someone who knows they
> hold a losing hand.

How would you know? The only time any Democrat has been allowed near
foreign policy in the last eight years has been when Bush suddenly
decided to start negotiating with terrorists. Well, at least he's
talking to some of them.

>
>
>
>>>>>> You can say
>>>>>
>>>>> And you can say......... and so on, but I've always found it
>>>>> to be more effective if I get to actually say what I want to
>>>>> say, and I let you say what you want to say, and so on.....
>>>>
>>>> I agree. But
>>>
>>> No "buts'. You either agree, or you do not.
>>
>> Pretty facile there. I agreed that your statement was true, but
>> it wasn't all that ought to have been said, unless one is trying
>> to mislead the reader.
>>
>>>
>>>> you said there was nothing much you could add. You
>>>> could add the truth.
>>>
>>> There is nothing in what I said that was either untrue, or that
>>> implied anything that was untrue, or misleading. And certainly
>>> nothing that should cause you to tell me what I would say.
>>> It's all
>>> of this mind reading in which you engage that seems to get you
>>> into trouble.
>>
>> What trouble am I in? I'm not reading your mind. I'm saying a
>> moral person would not say there is nothing more to be said.
>
> In terms of what Kerry said, and the fact that it was silly, there
> wasn't.

No, apparently it messed up your amazingly creative little joke to
point out that there might be more to be said that was both the truth
and largely mitigated the circumstances.

>>>>>> that the authorizaton was given by members of
>>>>>> Congress of both parties who did not completely read the bill
>>>>>> through, and who instead believed claims that later proved to
>>>>>> be lies. You can say that Kerry is only one of many members
>>>>>> of Congress that have expressed regret at having voted as
>>>>>> they did, but is disproportionately singled out for ridicule
>>>>>> when members of Congress change their minds all the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> I could say all of that, but I haven't.
>>>>
>>>> No, but you probably should have, because it was the truth.
>>>
>>> More mind reading noted.
>>
>> I cannot begin to read your mind, and the only thing that
>> surpasses my inability to do so is my interest in doing so. Your
>> moral sense is another matter entirely.
>
> Then why do you engage in the imoral tactic of trying to tell me
> what I should say? Why not just stick to what you should say?

Why don't you start by distinguishing between the things you want to
say, those you don't want to say, and the things you can't?

>>>>>> Of course, if it's not okay to change your mind, maybe you'd
>>>>>> like to discuss the voting record of John McCain.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's perfectly fine for those in power to change their
>>>>> minds, as long as there's some rationale for it. Are you
>>>>> under the impression that I think otherwise? But if we're
>>>>> going to pick on politicians for saying silly things, which
>>>>> of course, the dems love to do (and God knows that some
>>>>> repubs have given them plenty of ammunition), then I think
>>>>> it's perfectly fine to point out how silly it was for a dem
>>>>> to say something like 'I was for it before I was against it'.
>>>>> DUH! Even Kerry admitted that it was a dumb thing to say. Get
>>>>> a sense of humor, will ya?
>>>>
>>>> Sure it was dumb, but mostly because it left an opening for
>>>> some rather inappropriatey cruel ridicule in a serious
>>>> situation.
>>>
>>> Cruel?
>>
>> Cruel as in inflicting needless suffering for enjoyment's sake,
>> when there are more important matters at hand. Like telling the
>> truth.
>
> You've got to be kidding, right? so in your world, no jokes of
> pokes or prods should ever be made at anyone's expense until all of
> the problems of the world are solved? Tell me that you're kidding.

If I had said that, I assume I would be kidding. Hey, you can make all
the jokes you want. This one wasn't especially funny.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Petition to impeach Obama, if he wins the election 

In news:2008090208442516807-phil@nomailcom,
Phil <phil RemoveThis @nomail.com> mused:
> On 2008-09-02 07:47:00 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman RemoveThis @conversent.net>
> said:
>> In news:2008083001241482212-phil@nomailcom,
>> Phil <phil RemoveThis @nomail.com> mused:
>>> On 2008-08-29 08:04:41 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman RemoveThis @conversent.net>
>>> said:
>>>> Most of that is in yoour mind. While I explicitly said that
>>>> there was nothing more to be said, my suggestion was that
>>>> people say stupid things from time to time.
>>>
>>> And sometimes they say nothing when they shouldn't.
>>
>> Your point?
>
> I doubt I'll get anywhere by repeating myself,

Insult noted.

> but sggesting
> there was nothing more to be said, and implying that that was a
> universal, was both untrue and not the most moral of statements.
> Stating that you didn't want to say anything more would have
> been better.

What you undoubtedly fail to understand is that people get to have
different opinions than your own, and in my opinion, posting a silly
statement by Kerry in order to show that he made a silly statement
was all that there needed to be said in order to demonstrate that it
was a silly statement.

Whereas I was the one who was making that point, there is nothing
about morals, or charchter or honesty to be assailed if that's my
honest opinion.


>>>>>>> authorized the president to wage is not the one he is
>>>>>>> waging; that authorization was conditional and the
>>>>>>> conditions have not been met, therefore the authorization
>>>>>>> is null and void.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why has the democratic Congress not lived up to its
>>>>>> promise to end the war if it were voted into the majority,
>>>>>> especially if there's no valid authorization? Only Congress
>>>>>> can fund a war, and so why does the democratic Congress
>>>>>> continue to fund it?
>>>>>
>>>>> I've often wondered that myself, and I can only conclude that
>>>>> some Democrats are more interested in working with their
>>>>> counterparts across the aisle than most Republicans are. If
>>>>> you look at the breakdown of most votes, you'll find the
>>>>> Republicans voting in a unanimous block, with Democrats
>>>>> mostly, but not exlcusively, voting in a block. Combine that
>>>>> with the slim majority the Democrats hold, and a President
>>>>> who announces in advance that he'll refuse to sign anything
>>>>> Democrats put forth if it differs from what he himself wants,
>>>>> and you've got the situation we have today. However, since
>>>>> Republicans are dropping like flies from Congress, I expect
>>>>> this situation to change with, perhaps, some new majority
>>>>> leadership, no matter who ends up in the White House.
>>>>
>>>> If you are correct, then the Democrats are more hypocritical
>>>> than the Republicans, and the promise they make to the voters
>>>> means almost nothing. The whole promise of the 2005 campaigns
>>>> was that putting the Dems in power would bring the troops
>>>> home. That was their promise to the American people. To then
>>>> try to say that once they got in poser they were more willing
>>>> to abandon the central promise of the election so that they
>>>> could get along with their adversaries, which it might very
>>>> well be true, isn't much to brag about.
>>>
>>> You asked a question, I answered it. I wasn't bragging.
>>
>> You tried to "brag" about how the Dems were more willing to
>> reach across the isle than the Reps.
>
> I stated a fact while addressing the question of why the
> supposedly Democratic Congress has not accomplished more of
> their stated agenda.

And seemed quite proud of it.


>>>> Interestingly, you just described the Dems approach to foreign
>>>> policy as well. It certainly seems as though he Dems would
>>>> rather be liked by our adversaries, than protect us from them.
>>>
>>> Of course, if we just kill everyone then we won't have any
>>> adversaries.
>>
>> Ahhhhhhh, sarcasim. The last refusge of someone who knows
>> they hold a losing hand.
>
> How would you know? The only time any Democrat has been allowed
> near foreign policy in the last eight years has been when Bush
> suddenly decided to start negotiating with terrorists. Well, at
> least he's talking to some of them.

<sigh> Is it your position that the Democrats approach to foreign
policy is totally unknown because there isn't one in the
administration? Why do you take conversations like this down these
silly paths? Can you ever just honestly address a comment, or is
this superficial nonsense all that you've got to offer?


>>>>>>> You can say
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you can say......... and so on, but I've always found it
>>>>>> to be more effective if I get to actually say what I want to
>>>>>> say, and I let you say what you want to say, and so on.....
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree. But
>>>>
>>>> No "buts'. You either agree, or you do not.
>>>
>>> Pretty facile there. I agreed that your statement was true, but
>>> it wasn't all that ought to have been said, unless one is
>>> trying to mislead the reader.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> you said there was nothing much you could add. You
>>>>> could add the truth.
>>>>
>>>> There is nothing in what I said that was either untrue, or
>>>> that implied anything that was untrue, or misleading. And
>>>> certainly nothing that should cause you to tell me what I
>>>> would say. It's all
>>>> of this mind reading in which you engage that seems to get you
>>>> into trouble.
>>>
>>> What trouble am I in? I'm not reading your mind. I'm saying a
>>> moral person would not say there is nothing more to be said.
>>
>> In terms of what Kerry said, and the fact that it was silly,
>> there wasn't.
>
> No, apparently it messed up your amazingly creative little joke
> to point out that there might be more to be said that was both
> the truth and largely mitigated the circumstances.

Nope. It didn't.



>>>>>>> that the authorizaton was given by members of
>>>>>>> Congress of both parties who did not completely read the
>>>>>>> bill through, and who instead believed claims that later
>>>>>>> proved to be lies. You can say that Kerry is only one of
>>>>>>> many members of Congress that have expressed regret at
>>>>>>> having voted as they did, but is disproportionately
>>>>>>> singled out for ridicule when members of Congress change
>>>>>>> their minds all the time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I could say all of that, but I haven't.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, but you probably should have, because it was the truth.
>>>>
>>>> More mind reading noted.
>>>
>>> I cannot begin to read your mind, and the only thing that
>>> surpasses my inability to do so is my interest in doing so.
>>> Your moral sense is another matter entirely.
>>
>> Then why do you engage in the imoral tactic of trying to tell me
>> what I should say? Why not just stick to what you should say?
>
> Why don't you start by distinguishing between the things you
> want to say, those you don't want to say, and the things you
> can't?

Well, there's nothing that I want to say that I don't say, and
there's nothing that I want to say, that I can't say. There are
things that you wish I had said, that I didn't say, but that's a
different matter.


>>>>>>> Of course, if it's not okay to change your mind, maybe
>>>>>>> you'd like to discuss the voting record of John McCain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it's perfectly fine for those in power to change
>>>>>> their minds, as long as there's some rationale for it. Are
>>>>>> you under the impression that I think otherwise? But if
>>>>>> we're going to pick on politicians for saying silly things,
>>>>>> which of course, the dems love to do (and God knows that
>>>>>> some repubs have given them plenty of ammunition), then I
>>>>>> think it's perfectly fine to point out how silly it was for
>>>>>> a dem to say something like 'I was for it before I was
>>>>>> against it'. DUH! Even Kerry admitted that it was a dumb
>>>>>> thing to say. Get a sense of humor, will ya?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure it was dumb, but mostly because it left an opening for
>>>>> some rather inappropriatey cruel ridicule in a serious
>>>>> situation.
>>>>
>>>> Cruel?
>>>
>>> Cruel as in inflicting needless suffering for enjoyment's sake,
>>> when there are more important matters at hand. Like telling the
>>> truth.
>>
>> You've got to be kidding, right? so in your world, no jokes of
>> pokes or prods should ever be made at anyone's expense until
>> all of the problems of the world are solved? Tell me that
>> you're kidding.
>
> If I had said that, I assume I would be kidding. Hey, you can
> make all the jokes you want. This one wasn't especially funny.

In your opinion. I thought it was hilarious. Here's all that needs
to be said in order to prove that point..... "I was for the war,
before I was against it." -- John Kerry.
 >> Stay informed about: Petition to impeach Obama, if he wins the election