Quote :

"maybe if you didnt have such a political bias to cloud your thoughts you could actually see this from an independent perspective"

Oh man, the comedy of this statement is gold.

Btw, why such emphasis on the generals in Iraq. Were you saying the same thing when the generals were telling BushCo things he didn't want to hear just before he replaced them with people that would tell them what he wanted to hear?

All the same men that said we'd be in and out of there quick are fired because they were terribly wrong. Did you trust in those people, too? Can I join your cult?

5/3/2007 3:34:47 PM

the democrats would only meet under the precondition that they could dictate the timeline...gg Bush for not letting those fucking idiots have their way...also gg Bush for extending an invitation for Congress to meet with you, even though they'd rather stall and add more pork to bills than to discuss the war that they supposedly care about

your Blind Hate of Bush and the war clearly clouds your judgement on all these issues...I didnt vote for Bush or Kerry so I don't have the obvious problem that you do seeing things from both sides...you think Congress is perfect and Bush is a moron...I know Congress isnt perfect and Bush isnt as bad as you make him out to be...but please, continue with your political rants

5/3/2007 3:36:42 PM

Quote :

"the democrats would only meet under the precondition that they could dictate the timeline..."

You have it completely wrong, but if you keep stating it enough times, you might even begin to believe it.

5/3/2007 3:40:37 PM

Posts like that are why people correctly label you a troll. I'm giggling over here laughing at it. Keep up the good work!

5/3/2007 3:41:31 PM

why dont you actually exert a little brain power and tell me why you think thats wrong

tell me why the Democrats refused to meet with Bush to discuss the war?

or if you choose, just say "you're wrong" and "you're a troll" since that doesnt take any intelligence at all

Why wouldnt Congress accept Bush's invititation? Why???

Oh no, here I am arguing with a fucking alias again...an alias too scared to post under his real screen name

ps: non-Democrat != troll

[Edited on May 3, 2007 at 3:44 PM. Reason : .]

5/3/2007 3:42:49 PM

You want to talk about a waste of time, the Dems could have gotten as much out of that meeting if they agreed to it as going to a Tony Snow press briefing. You tell me what you actually expected to come out of that meeting...a bill exactly how the president wanted, no timetables, full funding, nothing less. Why should the Dems bother?

And how dumb are you that you are attempting to claim no bias when the whole world can see the opposite? I'm just as bored as you. Keep em coming!

5/3/2007 3:45:30 PM

why should the dems bother? i guess they shouldnt since they dont give a shit about the troops...they just want to make bush look bad and try to carry that momentum to the 08 presidential elections...i just wonder how their brilliant strategy will go once they realize that bush isnt running in 08

5/3/2007 3:47:44 PM

Quote :

"they just want to make bush look bad and try to carry that momentum to the 08 presidential elections..."

I think Bush is doing a fine job of it himself without the Dems help, with the referendum vote we had a few months and all, seems like the populous agrees.

5/3/2007 3:54:52 PM

so you also dont realize that bush isnt running in 08

hey maybe the republicans' strategy in the 08 elections is to bring up bill clinton and say edwards/hillary/obama/etc are all liars who care more about sex than running the country

5/3/2007 3:56:55 PM

You're not making any sense. Do you have an argument to make, or are you just going to continue spout of tangential comments in an effort to stir up trouble in this thread?

5/3/2007 4:02:34 PM

Quote :

"Oh no, here I am arguing with a fucking alias again...an alias too scared to post under his real screen name"

5/3/2007 4:04:26 PM

so now you're saying that the DEMOCRATS had preconditions because they didn't want to go into a meeting with preconditions? that's goddamn ridiculous.

5/3/2007 4:06:44 PM

the fact that you think the whole stalemate was onesided and completely bush's fault is ridiculous

you're saying bush would only meet if the democrats would guarantee no timetables

the democrats apparently would only meet if they could dictate the timetable

but its a completely onesided issue, right

5/3/2007 4:08:59 PM

Quote :

"the democrats apparently would only meet if they could dictate the timetable"

Keep stating it, and keep believing it. Do you think this is the case? Provide some evidence that this is the only way they would meet with Bush, and not the other way around. You're completely wrong, and we can all see it. Back up your statements, and stop trying to act like we are being one sided. I don't know why I bother.

5/3/2007 4:21:06 PM

Quote :

"Oh no, here I am arguing with a fucking alias again...an alias too scared to post under his real screen name"

5/3/2007 4:21:41 PM

Point? Doesn't make my message any less valid. Speaking of scared, why don't you answer any questions directly? You would rather choose to just offer redundant commentary and repeated statements to new points people make and expect it to make sense. Why bother?

5/3/2007 4:30:05 PM

Quote :

"why dont you actually exert a little brain power and tell me why you think thats wrong tell me why the Democrats refused to meet with Bush to discuss the war? or if you choose, just say "you're wrong" and "you're a troll" since that doesnt take any intelligence at all Why wouldnt Congress accept Bush's invititation? Why??? "

speaking of scared, who are you an alias of? oh yeah, you're scared shitless to admit it cause you'd rather just troll

5/3/2007 4:35:10 PM

Show me what I have posted in here that is trolling. I'm apparently trying to have a serious discussion with an uninterested or incapable party. Please forgive me. I'll leave you be.

5/3/2007 4:40:02 PM

why dont you answer that question^^ for starters since you havent done anything but say "you're wrong"

i wouldnt give a fuck that you're a pathetic alias who is scared to post under your real screen name if you'd actually answer a question instead of blantantly trolling

5/3/2007 4:41:09 PM

For starters, I already answered the question, see the Tony Snow comment. If you want more statements from the horses mouth, here they are

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200704/POL20070411b.html

Quote :

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promptly issued a statement saying that Democrats are "willing to meet with the president at any time," but not if he sets "preconditions." "

That shows just how wrong you were on this statement

Quote :

""the democrats would only meet under the precondition that they could dictate the timeline...""

which I called you out twice on.

It's not a meeting if one party does all the talking, and that is exactly what it would have been. So why should they have bothered. It was a cheap political ploy, the neocons, just like you, were going to spin it no matter what the Dems did. Now tell me who is more biased, you or you?

5/3/2007 4:46:05 PM

so I say that both Bush and the Democrats were stubborn about meeting and your only argument is a semantics argument over preconditions

you are just a stupid ass alias...if you had anything worthwhile to say that wasnt blatant trolling you could do it under your real screen name but no, you're too much of a bitchmade pussy

5/3/2007 4:48:52 PM

Semantics? Do you know what semantics are? You also seem to have some sort of paranoia complex it seems. You don't need to know who I am to debate my message.

5/3/2007 4:50:26 PM

yes the semantics of 'preconditions'

as in acting like the democrats didnt have their own preconditions about meeting with bush, which apparently they did, since they didnt meet with him

Quote :

"You don't need to know who I am to debate my message."

man up and admit your name, or stfu you alias troll...i've had the same screen name, my ONLY screen name for years...why should i listen to anything you say if you cant even be honest about who you are? just shows you're a troll...how can you be honest about anything if you cant even admit who you are?

5/3/2007 4:53:01 PM

So, what were the democrats preconditions, that they didn't have any preconditions? ROFL.

That could be considered semantics, but you specifically said they didn't want to meet unless they could dictate a timeline. There is nothing semantic about that.

5/3/2007 4:56:27 PM

the democrats didnt even put forth the effort to accept bush's invitation and at least create a starting point for discussing the war, regardless of the outcome...it would at least be an initial meeting and certainly nothing bad could have come from it

meanwhile you're a chickenshit alias troll

5/3/2007 4:57:38 PM

Quote :

"the democrats didnt even put forth the effort to accept bush's invitation and at least create a starting point for discussing the war, regardless of the outcome...it would at least be an initial meeting and certainly nothing bad could have come from it"

I asked you already and you didn't answer like usual. If they would have agreed to the meeting, what do you honestly expect the outcome to have been?

5/3/2007 5:04:30 PM

they wouldve realized what each side was going for, what each side was or wasnt willing to compromise, and then they could figure out the next best step

it would certainly be better than a couple months of proposing pork-filled bills that had absolutely zero, ZERO, effect

your reasoning for the Democrats not meeting with Bush is because nothing would get accomplished...then why the hell did they write up these bills that they knew would either fail or get vetoed? Did they not know that nothing would get accomplished there? At least by meeting with the President they would get a better idea of specifically what Bush would want...you're saying they shouldnt have met for a day or so because nothing would get accomplished...yet you dont seem to have a problem with them delaying for a couple months where not only does nothing get accomplished, but they dont even bring the President into the discussion...and I think they might want to, considering he has the power to veto anything he wants

but please...dont acknowledge that both sides are/were stubborn and that both sides had things they werent willing to compromise initially...just treat it like a onesided issue like some partisan hack

5/3/2007 5:09:58 PM

Quote :

"dont acknowledge that both sides are/were stubborn and that both sides had things they werent willing to compromise initially"

bush wasn't even willing to come to the table if a compromise was even possible.

Quote :

"At least by meeting with the President they would get a better idea of specifically what Bush would want..."

if they met with preconditions of no timetables and no pullout, then they'd all be labeled liars if they didn't agree with that.

[Edited on May 3, 2007 at 6:08 PM. Reason : .]

5/3/2007 6:06:59 PM

Quote :

"bush wasn't even willing to come to the table"

he invited them to meet with him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote :

"then they'd all be labeled liars if they didn't agree with that"

so what...at least they'd be making an effort...its a shame they care more about what false labels the public or media gives them

5/3/2007 6:11:31 PM

it really works to your advantage to only quote HALF A FUCKING SENTENCE. jesus the meat of the sentence was the second half anyway.

5/3/2007 6:13:50 PM

the 2nd half of the sentence was completely irrelevant

you're still claiming bush wouldnt meet with them...when he INVITED THEM TO MEET WITH HIM

you're just playing the stubborn democrat side of this argument, just like pelosi did

5/3/2007 6:14:59 PM

the first half is conditional on the second, jackass, that's what that little "if" means. if you want to quote people, then do so in a way that actually reflects what they're saying.

[Edited on May 3, 2007 at 6:15 PM. Reason : blah]

5/3/2007 6:15:46 PM

you're continously ignoring the glaring fact that bush invited them to meet with him, REGARDLESS OF IF A COMPROMISE WAS POSSIBLE, and they declined

how the fuck can you think this is one sided? holy shit

you can only see one of the stubborn sides, which unfortunately for you is only half of the story

5/3/2007 6:16:58 PM

they declined because it wasn't really going to be a discussion, the preconditions left no room for negotiation.

democrats:"let's talk".
bush: "only if you agree with me will i talk".
dems: "wtf?"

[Edited on May 3, 2007 at 6:19 PM. Reason : /]

5/3/2007 6:17:56 PM

bush: "lets talk...im inviting you to talk...I...AM...INVITING...YOU...TO...TALK"
dems: "no"

5/3/2007 6:23:46 PM

you forgot the "but he made it clear yesterday that he is not budging on his key demand -- a "clean" bill without "artificial deadlines" for withdrawal or restrictions on his commanders on the ground." part. (from an april 11 article on the subject)

5/3/2007 6:28:40 PM

"I doubt he'll change his mind...lets not even make the effort to meet with him...even though we wont know anything until we meet with him, lets be stubborn...hell maybe he's right, maybe it would be stupid to try and act like we know if any timetables are good for the war or not...lets just boycott the meeting"

2 wrongs dont make the left right

5/3/2007 6:29:34 PM

so you're saying dems are stubborn for not wanting bush to be stubborn?

5/3/2007 6:31:47 PM

i'm saying both sides are obviously stubborn

dems are stubborn for not even meeting with bush

you're putting 100% blame on bush and not even acknowledging that congress/dems are stubborn

5/3/2007 6:33:02 PM

i'm putting the blame on bush for negotiating not happening sooner.

do i think that passing the funding bill anyway was politics? sure. but i think it made a decent statement and showed that the idea had a reasonable amount of support. i think it will give dems a bit of an edge now that negotiation will have to happen if bush wants his war funded.

5/3/2007 6:35:27 PM

so you're not putting one single bit of blame on the Dems for not even meeting with Bush when he asked them a couple months ago

5/3/2007 6:42:00 PM

what would be the point. he already said ahead of time he wouldn't budge.

5/3/2007 6:50:11 PM

to make an effort? to show everyone that they care and want to do something?

if you're going off the "whats the point" angle, then tell me what the fuck is the point of wasting 2 months on a bill that they already know is going to get veto'd

at least if they'd gone to meet with him they wouldnt have wasted 2 months

but the dems can do no wrong! bush is the only stubborn party in this ordeal!

5/3/2007 6:55:35 PM

i already told you (more than once) what was accomplished with the debate and passage of the iraq funding bill.

5/3/2007 6:56:53 PM

at least they passed that bill to find out what it accomplished

at least they didnt pussy out and say "whats the point"

wow your blind democratic party support is clouding the everloving fuck out of your view on this issue

5/3/2007 6:59:24 PM

well bush is allowing timetables to be brought to the table now. so it must have accomplished something.

5/3/2007 7:06:56 PM

TreeTwista is terrible at this.

5/3/2007 8:22:57 PM

Quote :

"if you're going off the "whats the point" angle, then tell me what the fuck is the point of wasting 2 months on a bill that they already know is going to get veto'd at least if they'd gone to meet with him they wouldnt have wasted 2 months"

You have said this twice now, and I can't come to terms with how working pretty hard within the bill process, and yes, much of it was shitty pork, but it was still working hard, is somehow less effective than sitting down to let this President tell the Democrats what they already knew.

Both scenarios would have us at the same place, which is no bill passed. You'd have more credibility and look less like a Fox News kool aid sipper if you castigated the Dems for not working on a no funding bill without timetables, which is what they should have done.

5/3/2007 8:28:49 PM

you'd have a shred of credibility if you didnt dickride the entire democratic party 24/7 regardless of how stubborn they act

BUSH IS STUBBORN

PELOSI IS STUBBORN

for whatever reason you only see half of that like a partisan sheep

and now you're probably going to again try to pigeonhole label me as something other than an independent because thats all your weak partisan mind can grasp...no wonder you're scared to post under your real screen name...just another troll alias

5/3/2007 8:46:42 PM

Quote :

"BUSH IS STUBBORN PELOSI IS STUBBORN for whatever reason you only see half of that like a partisan sheep"

#1, it's pretty sad that most people in this thread try to have reasonable, level headed debates, and you spend 20 posts arguing a point like this. Is that the extent of your capability?

Quote :

"if you castigated the Dems for not working on a no funding bill without timetables, which is what they should have done."

#2 Maybe context fails you. Maybe you're just trolling. But if you think me pointing out what the Dems should have done, that is, it's plainly implicit that I didn't agree fully with what they did by the admission, is dickriding, well, once again, there is no hope for you, and you're wasting everyone's time except for your own, apparently.

Quote :

"and now you're probably going to again try to pigeonhole label me as something other than an independent because thats all your weak partisan mind can grasp"

Hey, I'm not the guy who, in the midst of one of the most interesting times in our nations history politically, gets entangled arguing with with anonymous internet folks about which side was more stubborn. That's a lofty standard you are setting there my friend.

Quote :

"no wonder you're scared to post under your real screen name...just another troll alias"

I asked you once, I'll ask again, point out to me where I have done anything other than attempt to have a reasonable and frank debate.

5/3/2007 9:00:07 PM