Reply With Quote
I blame him because he's a little , but that's just me.
People make wagers on this forum constantly. Johnny Blaze's signature is the result of such a wager. I knew you'd decline, and I don't blame you. Its a sucker bet, because the odds of republicans retaining the house are extremely low. I just think its funny that you're pounding your chest above, but you scurry off to your corner when challenged.
I blame him because he's a little , but that's just me.
I have signatures off.
And, if your so sure, take the bet. I'll even drop the half where you leave if the Democrats take the House.
Why would I take a bet where I have nothing to gain? I am sure, but that doesn't change the bet is re ed.
I guess for the same reason you post in a forum with nothing to gain.
"Hey Pot, this is Kettle. Have I ever told you how black you are?"
I'm talking about taking care of business. The lying murdering loser broke the law and people are dead because of it. Impeachment must happen.
I'm talking about "bringing integrity back to the White House". With all due respect, If you think Bush is even remotely sufficient in running this country, you are sadly mistaken.
Ya man! Bring back Clinton...errr..wait...nevermind.
I don't recall ever claiming to have achieved anything in here. Nor have I made any wagers.
I'm merely entertained by you clowns.
Go ahead, dance some more Manny. I wonder how many Mannys would fit into a clown car.
Well GGA as usual, you come up with some off the wall crap about
Bush went to war on his own. May I direct you attention to the following
little article from CNN on a resolution passed by the Senate, which
included 29 Dimm-o-craps, who now say they were mislead.
Senate approves Iraq war resolution
Administration applauds vote
Story Tools
WASHINGTON (CNN) --In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.
The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."
"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."
While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.
The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.
Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.
The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.
The Bush administration and its supporters in Congress say Saddam has kept a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions and has continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bush also has argued that Iraq could give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists.
Iraq has denied having weapons of mass destruction and has offered to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return for the first time since 1998. Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
"If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said.
The White House immediately rejected the offer, saying the matter is up to the United Nations, not Iraq.
Resolution sharply divides Democrats
The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.
Ahead of the vote, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle announced Thursday morning he would support Bush on Iraq, saying it is important for the country "to speak with one voice at this critical moment."
Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored." However, he urged Bush to move "in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse."
Daschle had expressed reservations about a possible U.S. attack on Iraq, and he was not part of an agreement between the White House and other congressional leaders framing the resolution last week.
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, attempted Thursday to mount a filibuster against the resolution but was cut off on a 75 to 25 vote.
Byrd had argued the resolution amounted to a "blank check" for the White House.
"This is the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again," Byrd said. "Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Cons ution."
But Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said the United States needs to move before Saddam can develop a more advanced arsenal.
"Giving peace a chance only gives Saddam Hussein more time to prepare for war on his terms, at a time of his choosing, in pursuit of ambitions that will only grow as his power to achieve them grows," McCain said.
In the House, six Republicans -- Ron Paul of Texas; Connie Morella of Maryland; Jim Leach of Iowa; Amo Houghton of New York; John Hostettler of Indiana; and John Duncan of Tennessee -- joined 126 Democrats in voting against the resolution.
Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations.
"I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent," said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure.
But Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said the 133 votes against the measure were "a very strong message" to the administration.
"All across this land Americans are insisting on a peaceful resolution of matters in Iraq," he said. "All across this land, Americans are looking towards the United States to be a nation among nations, working through the United Nations to help resolve this crisis."
================================================== ========
The top 5 percent of of taxpayers pay over 54 percent of the taxes.
So get off the crap that only the poor pay taxes and rich keep getting
richer.
================================================== ======
And you and others keep saying Bush has no credibility, but it was
your dumb ass President, Clinton and Carter who gave away the nuke to
NK. You folks scream and holler about staying out of a war, cutting and
running and turn right around and say go to war with Iran and NK.
make up you mind. What little you have.
================================================== =======
You all make me sick with your, lets have their hide at ude. If for once
in your small life you would support your country and quit being mad at
losing an election(s), you might find a whole new life.
I will promise you one thing, if the dimm-o-craps do win the house and
senate, so be it. We will still have the President to hold them in check.
But if we lose that in a couple of years, I will still support our country
and troops and the President in his actions. I may no agree with them,
but I will support him. You can keep that little piece of information and
re-read it from time to time, if your side gets lucky.
You damn well can say the same thing.
Yeah you can and it shows how your small mind works. In ever decreasingImpeach, impeach, impeach, impeach, impeach, impeach, impeach...
Oh, I can just see it now.
Impeach George W. Bush
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UmXdep8_IIM
circles.
Our future is very bright. Because we have people who do care. It will and
has survived worst times.
The really scary part is Nacy and Harry. There is pair to be scared of.
One who is a dyed in the wool socialist and one who will lie and turn a buck
every chance he can.
Once again, if you inmpeach Bush there's still Cheyney, it' like going from your left nut to your right nut. It's still a damn testicle. Repubs winning back the House would/should just curb W's party.
fixed.
I gain entertainment and information from posting in this forum, neither of which I gain from a one sided bet.
Scoreboard baby, scoreboard is coming. I don't give a what you say.
Hey Manny, where is all this ing rain the local forecasters said we were going to get? Several inches my ass.Scoreboard baby, scoreboard is coming. I don't give a what you say.
Oh, they'll never remove him. If the Dems win the Senate, it will be by a whisker, not with 67 seats. Impeachment by the House is only half the process, as the GOP found out. It would be a WELL deserved stain on the disfunctional Blue Dress of a "Presidency", though.
Now there is an excellent reason to hate someone
Yep, next time I want to understand what is really going on, I'll go to you.
And? This is a meaningless stat.
The important point to be made is how much are the rich paying with respect to their net worth. Give me a study where they show that stat and we can have a meaningful discussion.
What an outrage! Let's tax all those motherfucing bottomfeaders. They should opt between eating or paying Uncle Sam.The bottom 75% of wage earners in this country only pay 16% of the taxes!
Well, if the rich and corporations pay a little more, the poor can pay less, that's for sure. But I'm no expert on this subject. Maybe the poor are already paying their fair share of taxes.How much more can their taxes be cut
A fair system would make me happy.I guess you'd be happy if the top 5% paid 100% of the taxes, huh?
I usually try not insult ladies but you are tempting your fate.Dems slogan should be:
Give the slackers at the bottom more money to buy cigarettes, alcohol and lottery tickets!
One of the most ignorant statements I have read in the forum in a while.
And you are supposed to be a Christian?
Have you read the Bible where it says "Blessed are the poor . . ." and so on and so forth?
Last edited by smeagol; 10-15-2006 at 07:03 PM.
Man, I just want the republicans out for now. We'll talk about more later.
Once again: Democrats can only raise taxes with Bush's signature.
I'd vote left if there was a race that was debateable for me, anything less than national congress or Gov. it doesn't pay to vote to make a statement.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
