Kucinich sets 5 PM for announcement of Articles of Impeachment against Cheney

M14 Shooter said:

Why would I?
You answered my question, and agreed that the Dems are playing politics.
That's all my question looked for.

Click to expand...

And in doing so, you have demonstrated your dishonesty to everyone here. You now know one of the main reasons I vote Libertarian and no longer vote for Republicans. You also now know the reason the Democrats kicked Republican butt last November, my Republicrat friend.

Ikari said:

To be fair then, you too are engaging in nothing more than politics. You set up the questions to allow for only one answer

Click to expand...

On the contrary -- you could answer "no".

and then upon getting that answer refuse to listen to any clarification or expounding that may need to be made for a complete answer.

Click to expand...

How is "yes, the Dems are playing politics with the war" not a complete answer to the question of if the Dems are playing politics with the war?

danarhea said:

And in doing so, you have demonstrated your dishonesty to everyone here.

Click to expand...

My point was that the Dems are doing what they can to make sure that we lose the war for purely political reasons -- a point to which you agreed.

Did your "lecture" invalidate my point, or your agreement to it? Nope.

So, why do I need to respond to it?

M14 Shooter said:

On the contrary -- you could answer "no".


How is "yes, the Dems are playing politics with the war" not a complete answer to the question of if the Dems are playing politics with the war?

Click to expand...

Well the point is that while it is true that the Dems could stand to gain some form of political ground by a failure of Bush's policy, the rhetoric used to make this point is specifically made so that one can automatically discount the moves of the Democrats as a political ploy to gain them power. But there can be some truth in the dissent against the President and his war. Furthermore, the Democrats can't make any headway politically through the non-funding of the troops, and everyone knows this. This means that push comes to shove, they ain't gonna cut off money to the troops because this will hurt them politically. The way they win politically isn't by setting up the terms of failure and pushing for it, but rather the natural course of the Bush administration's plan failing is what will gain them political ground.

I don't think it behooves any of us to talk about this subject in the standard political polarization which saturates the current conditions.

Ikari said:

Well the point is that while it is true that the Dems could stand to gain some form of political ground by a failure of Bush's policy, the rhetoric used to make this point is specifically made so that one can automatically discount the moves of the Democrats as a political ploy to gain them power

Click to expand...

How is that not a fair point?
And isnt that more or less what I asked?
If they stand to gain from losing the war, what argument is there that they are NOT acting in such a way to ensure that we lose the war?

Furthermore, the Democrats can't make any headway politically through the non-funding of the troops, and everyone knows this. This means that push comes to shove, they ain't gonna cut off money to the troops because this will hurt them politically.

Click to expand...

Indeed -- this echoes my idea that they do whatever they do in order to gain/keep political power. Thank you.
This supports the idea that they are doing what they can do to ensure we do not win the war -- doesn't it?

The way they win politically isn't by setting up the terms of failure and pushing for it, but rather the natural course of the Bush administration's plan failing is what will gain them political ground.

Click to expand...

And yet, that's exactly what they are doing.

I don't think that is what they are doing. It appears more of what they are doing is trying to flex their political muscles to accomplish a goal. When it comes down to it, they won't cut funding for the troops. If they have to, they'll pass some emergency funding bill which doesn't have any withdraw dates in it. They know that if they actually cut funding to the troops, they will lose political ground. They're trying to make noise so that people will pay attention to Congress and its powers, but if they want to win through this it will have to come through the failings of Bush's plans, not through the cutting of funding of the troops.

M14 Shooter said:

My point was that the Dems are doing what they can to make sure that we lose the war for purely political reasons -- a point to which you agreed.

Did your "lecture" invalidate my point, or your agreement to it? Nope.

So, why do I need to respond to it?

Click to expand...

Let me, for the record, document your dishonesty here:

1) This goes back a way, when you said that Bush won't be running in 2008, so so what? I responded with this:

He isn't, but his party is, and at this point, they stand to be huge losers in the election. Bush won't be running in 2008, but he will definitely be the major issue, and the slaughter of the GOP at the polls will be all his fault.

Click to expand...

My point is that Bush, although not running, will be the major issue in 2008, will take the Republican party down. I specifically responded that Republican defeats are the fault of GW Bush.

2) Instead of responding to that point, and trying to refute it, which you cannot, you post your red herring, defining the debate in terms of Democrats and Republicans, which has nothing to do with the point that I made that Bush is destroying the Republican party.

3) Because I chose to debate honestly, I agreed with you that Democrats are basically crap too. Of course, being the dishonest debater you are, you chose only to respond to selected points I made without addressing the main issue - How the Republican party is destroying itself through their dishonesty. Also, you never responded to my point that the GOP betrayed Ronald Reagan's concept of taking responsibility for one's own actions.

4) Now if I were you, what I would have done would be to never address your red herrings, because, in your words "I don't have to", and could have kept demanding that you respond to my point, while choosing to ignore yours. But just because you chose to be dishonest in this thread, doesn't mean I have to also be dishonest. I responded to what you posted. I am still waiting for you to respond to my original point - That, although Bush is no longer running, his party still is, and Bush being the main issue next year, will take his party down with him.

I am still waiting for your response to my original point, without any more attempts to obfuscate it. You can either be honest, and answer it, or you can continue to demonstrate to everyone here why the label "sleazy" is used to describe Republicans these days.

Ikari said:

I don't think that is what they are doing.

Click to expand...

So... you said "no" to a question that you said I set up that where the answer coud only be "yes".

It appears more of what they are doing is trying to flex their political muscles to accomplish a goal.

Click to expand...

Which is...?

They know that if they actually cut funding to the troops, they will lose political ground. They're trying to make noise so that people will pay attention to Congress and its powers,

Click to expand...

Yes. You said that.
It supports my position.

[qiuote]but if they want to win through this it will have to come through the failings of Bush's plans, not through the cutting of funding of the troops.[/QUOTE]
There's MUCH more to what they're doing to see that we lose other than 'cutting funding'.

danarhea said:

Let me, for the record, document your dishonesty here:

Click to expand...

Wow.

Do you -always- get this uspset whe someone doesn't do what you think they should do?

Or when they ignore your psost because it doesnt have anything to do with their point?

So sensitive.

I made the point that the dems are acting to make sure they lose the war so they can gain political power. You agreed with me.

Since you agreed with me, there's no need to go any further, especially when all you're doing past that point is arguing 'oh yeah well the GOP is crap as well!' -- which is no different than someone arguing "Clinton did it too!!".

M14 Shooter, don't be so smug, you have no reason to be. anyone can plainly see that you don't address danarhea's various points. to do so would be to refute yourself.

niftydrifty said:

M14 Shooter, don't be so smug, you have no reason to be. anyone can plainly see that you don't address danarhea's various points. To do so would be to refute yourself.

Click to expand...

Lesse...

I argued X. He agreed with X.

He then carries on about Y and Z - and then complains that I do not address Y and Z.

Not sure why I should be any too worried about that.

M14 Shooter said:

Lesse...

I argued X. He agreed with X.

He then carries on about Y and Z - and then complains that I do not address Y and Z.

Not sure why I should be any too worried about that.

Click to expand...

Not true - Y and Z happened to be part of argument W, which instead of addressing, you gave us red herring X instead.

Argument W is post number 25 in response to post 11 by you, which refutes your argument in post 11.

Red herring X is a number of posts, beginning with post number 27

So why are you posting misleading statements now?

To everyone else - Folks, what you have just witnessed is a demonstration as to why Republicans and their supporters (M14 Shooter, for one) are the minority in Congress, and why the GOP is going to be crushed next year. People don't want the same BS anymore. They would like the truth. If the Democrats do the same, then we should unelect them as well.

For the record, M14 has sufficiently demonstrated my whole point about political parties, whether they be Democratic or Republican. The 2 major parties consist of snakes in the grass, and their supporters are also Anti-American snakes. It is long past time for the Republi-crats to bite the dust. They do not love or support America. The only things they care about are their own BS political games, and America loses either way.

danarhea said:

Not true - Y and Z happened to be part of argument W, which instead of addressing, you gave us red herring X instead.

Click to expand...

Sigh.
Apparently you need your ego stroked. Fine. :roll:

You said:

He isn't, but his party is, and at this point, they stand to be huge losers in the election. Bush won't be running in 2008, but he will definitely be the major issue, and the slaughter of the GOP at the polls will be all his fault.

Click to expand...

My response:

Indeed. <--- note that this is an agreement with your post
And what does -all- of this hinge on?
The progress of the war.

Click to expand...

Not sure how you can say I didn't address your post.

And then, after I addressed your post, I moved on to the idea that the Dems were acting to make sure the war did not go well so that they would win in 2008 -- an idea that you agreed with.

Also not sure how you can say this...

To everyone else - Folks, what you have just witnessed is a demonstration as to why Republicans and their supporters (M14 Shooter, for one) are the minority in Congress, and why the GOP is going to be crushed next year. People don't want the same BS anymore. They would like the truth. If the Democrats do the same, then we should unelect them as well.

Click to expand...

...given that I agreed with your post.

But hey -- you obviously want to shawdow box with straw men.
I sure wont stop you.

Kucinich says that it is unconstitutional for the vice president to threaten force on another nation without them attacking the U.S.

Click to expand...

This means that every president that served during the cold war and the "Mutually Assured Destruction" policy is guilty of unconstitutional actions.

AcePylut said:

This means that every president that served during the cold war and the "Mutually Assured Destruction" policy is guilty of unconstitutional actions.

Click to expand...

Oh, it goes further back than the Cold War.

"Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick" ring a bell?

Ikari said:

Well the point is that while it is true that the Dems could stand to gain some form of political ground by a failure of Bush's policy,

Click to expand...

They have bet the bank on it. They are utterly committed to it. They headed down a one way street and they can't turn back. Their entire political efforts are being put into bringing down the adminsitration and making sure the last two years of the Bush administration are a failure. They don't care what that means to our safety. They don't care what that means to our livlyhoods, they don't care what it means to our futures.

But there can be some truth in the dissent against the President and his war.

Click to expand...

They dissent because they believe it brings them power. When they thought supporting it brought them power they supported it.

Furthermore, the Democrats can't make any headway politically through the non-funding of the troops, and everyone knows this.

Click to expand...

Yet they choose to engage in this political ploy, wasting the time of the Congress, wasting the time of the Executive, demoralizing our troops, encouraging our enemies and discouraging the other countries of the world from helping. It's called folly.

This means that push comes to shove, they ain't gonna cut off money to the troops because this will hurt them politically.

Click to expand...

And that they would make it a political issue is reprehensible and they should never be put in power again.

The way they win politically isn't by setting up the terms of failure and pushing for it, but rather the natural course of the Bush administration's plan failing is what will gain them political ground.

Click to expand...

Well that's not what they are doing at all and haven't since it became apparent to them that they might lose political power if Bush and the country was successful in Iraq.

I don't think it behooves any of us to talk about this subject in the standard political polarization which saturates the current conditions.

Click to expand...

Well tell that to the Dems.

Stinger said:

They dissent because they believe it brings them power. When they thought supporting it brought them power they supported it.

Click to expand...

This is EXACTLY correct.
Few are the Dems that opposed the war when the idea was popular.

This is what happens when your core belief is "get elected and stay elected".

But you act as if that isn't exactly how the Republicans run the show to. That's exactly what they do, they politicize this issue and they have the core belief of "once you get elected, stay elected". So you critique one side for behaving in some manner while your side engages in the same exact behavior.

Ikari said:

But you act as if that isn't exactly how the Republicans run the show to. That's exactly what they do, they politicize this issue and they have the core belief of "once you get elected, stay elected". So you critique one side for behaving in some manner while your side engages in the same exact behavior.

Click to expand...

Can you give me some evidence of this?

Every time some one says "X doesn't support the troops" "Y hates America" "Z supports the terrorists"; these attacks are politicizing a topic to make the dissent side equal treason some how. Don't act like this isn't a common tactic of the NeoCons. And why do you think things like social security, medicade/medicare (for one) are never touched? Even though the efficiency of these programs could be greatly increased? Because anyone fool enough to mess around with these programs won't be in office too much longer. No one in office is going to try to act in a way which will not get them reelected. The Republocrats behave the same way, they are part of the same class (I call them the blue bloods).

Ikari said:

Every time some one says "X doesn't support the troops"

Click to expand...

When the shoe fits. John Murtha has clearly stated he wants to bleed our troops dry, that is NOT supporting the troops.

"Y hates America"

Click to expand...

Who has said that about whom? And how is that worse than accusing the President of sending our troops off to war to enrich his buddies?

"Z supports the terrorists";

Click to expand...

Their actions speak louder than words. Surrender supports our enemies.

these attacks are politicizing

Click to expand...

That's not politicizing. That's pointing out the facts.

And why do you think things like social security, medicade/medicare (for one) are never touched?

Click to expand...

Because the Democrats have refused to allow them to be touched.

Even though the efficiency of these programs could be greatly increased?

Click to expand...

Vote out the Dems then.

Because anyone fool enough to mess around with these programs won't be in office too much longer. No one in office is going to try to act in a way which will not get them reelected. The Republocrats behave the same way, they are part of the same class (I call them the blue bloods).

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but the Republicans are the only ones who have tried to fix them, it's the Dems standing in the way and politicizing it in the meantime stating that the Republicans just want to see the poor die.

Ikari said:

But you act as if that isn't exactly how the Republicans run the show to. That's exactly what they do, they politicize this issue and they have the core belief of "once you get elected, stay elected". So you critique one side for behaving in some manner while your side engages in the same exact behavior.

Click to expand...

If that's the case, then why does the GOP, in general at least, still support the war?

Stinger said:

When the shoe fits. John Murtha has clearly stated he wants to bleed our troops dry, that is NOT supporting the troops.

Click to expand...

It doesn't mean that. That's the no brain response they put out so people don't think about things. If someone dissents, it's "oh they hate the troops, that's un-American, blah blah blah." It's dishonest to try to make these arguments because the actual attempt being made is to squish all dissent. But dissent against the government and the authority is a tried and true American ideal.

Stinger said:

And how is that worse than accusing the President of sending our troops off to war to enrich his buddies?

Click to expand...

If the shoe fits...right?

Stinger said:

Their actions speak louder than words. Surrender supports our enemies.

Click to expand...

No one says surrender, we aren't in a proper war there is no surrender.

Stinger said:

That's not politicizing. That's pointing out the facts.

Click to expand...

These are not facts, these are politicized opinions spoken and written for the explicit reason to split the people and demonize one side while promoting ignorance on the issue. No one talks about the actual plans, the reasoning, what has happened and how we can learn about it. As soon as someone says that they don't think the path in Iraq is right, and that there is necessity for change it's terrorist supporter this, and troop hater that. It's a sickening spin on a situation which requires rational thought. But the inability of people to actually address this in a rational manner is hurting us from perhaps coming up with potential plans which will get us out of Iraq.

Stinger said:

Because the Democrats have refused to allow them to be touched.

Click to expand...

I do believe there was a decade or so where the Republicans controlled the Congress, and part of that time in which the Republicans controlled the Congress and the Presidency. They could have been changed then and the Democrats couldn't have prevented it. The reason it wasn't was because the Republicans as well as the Democrats know full well messing with those things is political suicide. And neither side is willing to give up their seat once they have won it.

Stinger said:

Vote out the Dems then.

Click to expand...

The Democrats are not the only problem, the Republicans are equally at fault for the current state of our government

Stinger said:

I'm sorry but the Republicans are the only ones who have tried to fix them, it's the Dems standing in the way and politicizing it in the meantime stating that the Republicans just want to see the poor die.

Click to expand...

Republicans have tried nothing, they have no need to fix anything. All they gotta do is talk and talk about how the other side is so much worse. Of course, this is the same behavior that the Democrats engage in as well. The Republocrats will politicize everything they can, they will talk about everything they can, and they will do their best not to do anything to solve the problem. Look at the illegal immigration issue, it's a good example. Republicans say one thing, claim the Democrat plan will cost us lots of money and blah blah blah. Democrats say another thing, claim the Republicans are evil and blah blah blah. They pass a bill to build a wall...but there's no funding. All talk no action, that is the Republocrats. Solving the problem takes it out of the talking points. Why would they want to solve anything when they can keep talking about it for eternity. So long as they can keep enough people thinking the other side is so much worse that they can't even risk thought, they win and stay in power. Nothing gets done, govenrment gets bigger and more inefficient, the people get removed from the govenrment, and ultimately we find ourselves enslaved. And why? Because some people would like to think the Democrats are traitors for dissenting against the authority and because of this refuse to rationally think about the situation or the power the government is wielding.

Republocrats are bad for America.

Kucinich is such a joke and to think he expresses opinions that a lot of dems agree with............