Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Anti-war Dem Voters: A Non-Binding Resolution - is this what you voted for? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Anti-war Dem Voters: A Non-Binding Resolution - is this what you voted for?
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just curious to see what you people who are steadfastly anti-war and voted for your Democrat candidate this past election on the belief that we need to end the war and bring the troops home...

What are your thoughts on the NON-BINDING Resolution recently passed, saying they "dissaprove" of the troop surge?

Surely they have enough votes to de-fund this "illegal and immoral war?"

What do you think about this? Is it merely symbolism? Political cowardice? Or is there some good reason behind it that you support? [Confused]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is a baby step in the right direction. Although the madness of King George might make something as drastic as defuning neccesary.

Or maybe just enacting the war powers act.

Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lots of members of Congress. I doubt that you could form a majority of any one particular motivation.

I'd guess some privately want the troop surge but have political reasons for appearing to oppose it. Some want us out of Iraq at any cost but can't get the votes for it, and have settled to fire a shot over the presisdent's head. And some probably want to fire the shot over Bush's head, because while they want out of Iraq, they actually aren't willing to put us through Saigon again to get there. That's basically the Nixon position on Vietnam, wanting out, but with dignity. Still others may be privately honest enough to realize they don't have a clue about the war, but like to engage in anti-war symbolism like flinging medals at walls while allowing other people to make the real decisions and take the responsibility for the consequences.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't know if you'd classify me as an anti-war Dem voter. I maintain that it was a mistake for us to go into Iraq, but now that we're there, we're responsible, and I support the troop surge and oppose imposing deadlines that would serve the insurgents and Al Qaeda.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"oppose imposing deadlines that would serve the insurgents and Al Qaeda."

How about imposing deadlines that would serve the US and her citizens?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Without a crystal ball its tough to make that call since the troop surge might very well serve the insurgents and al Qaeda too...
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, the question is that I get this perception that the anti-war people that proudly vote Democrat wanted a real change in the direction of the country and the war. The first thing the Dem majority has done is vote on a resolution that is purely political theatre...style over substance.

Seriously, if I were an anti-war, Dem voter, I think I'd be a bit peeved with my party right about now over this.

As much problems as I now have with George Bush as President, I will say that in 2000, I voted for him strictly on the issue of his campainging to cut taxes - and he delivered on that.

When Bush Sr. said "Read My Lips" and than signed the Democrats tax hike in a compromise, the RepubliCons by and large stayed home or voted for Perot, registering their total dissatisfaction with the broken promise.

I'm just curious to see if the anti-war contingent that voted on the issue of ending the war are happy with this action...because to me, it really looks like political theatre to satisfy the "base" without actually doing anything.

If I were an anti-war Dem, and I voted that way, I think I'd be quite pissed off with the Dems for this crap.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Its a start, daruma, its a start.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The objective of the surge is not well-defined. It assumes stability once the surge is backed away from, but I haven't seen anything that explains how the stability will be maintained or even what it exactly is.

The explanations behind the strategy so far also don't explain why the Mahdi army or insurgents will stand their ground until they are killed off. What if they move the fight to the south or the north? What if they take a vacation until we declare victory and stand down? What if the Kurds decide it's too dangerous to police Baghdad, what if it sparks a coup by Sadr or a dissolution of the Parliament? I haven't seen any discussion of any of these or other unintended consequences, and so far this war has been nothing but.

Call me a totally negative cynic, but first explain convincingly what the outcome will be by summer (when Casey says we'll be done) or later this year or mid-next year, when others say we'll be done.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now, if I understand this correctly, the Senate holds the purse strings, but the executive branch gets to decide what to do with the troops. Is that more or less correct?

So, the dems don't have the authority to start removing the troops. What they could do is defund starting immediately, or defund some time in the future.

What would be the effect of defunding immediately, since troops and support personnel are already deeply entrenched on the other side of the world?

If defunding later, why could this not be implemented next week, next month or in the spring? And what's to stop them from making a compromise with the admin in the meantime (as opposed to simply cutting the funding without discussion)

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
"oppose imposing deadlines that would serve the insurgents and Al Qaeda."

How about imposing deadlines that would serve the US and her citizens?

Sounds like a great idea. That would have to be a secret deadline, since Congress has proven its incapacity to keep quiet about such things, and since any public deadline would serve the insurgents and Al Qaeda.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The house holds the purse strings, D.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"What would be the effect of defunding immediately, since troops and support personnel are already deeply entrenched on the other side of the world?"

That's what I meant by repeating Saigon, and it's a very valid argument, IMO.

[ January 25, 2007, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"and since any public deadline would serve the insurgents and Al Qaeda."

I disagree. Completely.

A public deadline serves us, because it means that we can set goals for dates, and determine whether or not we are moving at the speed we are trying to move at or not, which allows for real self-evaluation. As citizens, we are also benefitted, because we don't have to look at this as an occupation without end, allows us to understand better what it is our government is trying tod.

It also benefits the iraqi's, because they have to meet their own goals to match our deadlines about when our troop numbers dwindle.

I think these factors far outweigh any benefit that the insurgents and al-qaeda get.

Of course, we can always just keep muddling along as we have been without deadlines.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In other words, none of you that voted on this topic are dissapointed with this?
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"In other words, none of you that voted on this topic are dissapointed with this?"

Do I want more? Yes. But I'm also smart enough to realize this had to be the first step.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
"and since any public deadline would serve the insurgents and Al Qaeda."

I disagree. Completely.

So?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"So?"

So I think that if you make this argument, you're an administration shill, since the only americans it benefits to not have deadlines are people who have blundered in running this war.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 869

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I thought the miniscule tax cuts we got in bush's first term would be the first step, but it was the only step. Well, then the Republicans went on a spending spree, so I guess the 2nd step was a step backwards..

Likewise, I sorta hoped, but didn't really expect, that Don't Ask Don't Tell would be the first step, but we got the DOMA instead.

Both parties are big on promises and big on "first steps" but then they never really go anywhere. Remember, their job isn't to serve you or do what they say they're going to do. Their job isn't to help the country or people or anything else. Their only job is to get re-elected.

Posts: 385 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"you're an administration shill"

As one who has raised holy hell, time after time on this forum about people questioning your own motives for posting, perhaps you should re-consider ascribing this kind of motives to another, eh?

Aside from that, tell me, when was the last war our country was involved in where our Governemnt sent some kind of arbitrary deadline to withdraw from the conflict?

When did this become the paradigm for war?

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You forgot about ideologically driven policy. When you have every Gopper in Congress taking the same position about the war for over 3 years, all perspective is gone. This war may have been started under a bi-partisan premise, but it has been waged by a single party following in lock step behind its leader. Dems have had precious little to do with it once they agreed to give Bush have what he wanted back in 2002.
quote:
any public deadline would serve the insurgents and Al Qaeda.
Yeah, but so does not having a deadline. They can wait til doomsday for us to leave.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're right, I should have phrased that differently, daruma.

"The effect of making the argument that deadlines help al-qaeda and the insurgents is to become a mouthpeice for the administration."

Shill does imply motivation, and I didn't mean to imply that pete is taking the administrations money in exchange for providing propoganda.

The EFFECT is that pete is providing propoganda for the administration, free of charge even, but its not his intent so far as I know.

Aside from all of that, as far as I can tell from conversations with the moderators, speculating on people's motives is allowed, as long as you say "sorry" afterwards in private emails with the moderators.

[ January 25, 2007, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Aside from that, tell me, when was the last war our country was involved in where our Governemnt sent some kind of arbitrary deadline to withdraw from the conflict?

When did this become the paradigm for war?"

who said anything about arbitary? Most of us deadline people want a timeline that is linked to goals achieved.

Beyond that, occupying a country isn't the same as waging the war. We already won the war... saddam's government has been toppled and the military is no longer fighting us. We haven't been fighting a WAR in iraq for years, now.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When was the last time we set up a war based on lies and lost because our goals were never matched to a winnable strategy?

Not coincidently with some of the same bozos running the show there, too.

Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
moodi
Member
Member # 3020

 - posted      Profile for moodi   Email moodi   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Sounds like a great idea. That would have to be a secret deadline, since Congress has proven its incapacity to keep quiet about such things, and since any public deadline would serve the insurgents and Al Qaeda.


Bush's no-deadline policy is a terrorist's wish. Al Qaeda in the Middle East has gotten much stronger over the past 3 years thanks to the invasion.

Iraq has obviously become a big itch: The more you scratch it, the worse it gets. Pulling out might not be a great solution, but it's at least a solution.

Posts: 134 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LeftyPat: You are on the wrong forum. Take your hyperbole to a more appropriate forum like here or here. The "madness of King George" and "bozos" type of crap would be much more suitable and greeted with the appreciable hallelujahs of the lefty echo chamber stuff you are spouting here.

Moodi - I often see your assertion made all over the place...but never see any kind of factual evidence to back it up. How can you assert that AQ is "stronger?" On what basis is that assessment made?

[ January 25, 2007, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you for the advise, Daruma. I see you like it when you don't have people around who disagree with you.

Personally I find it boring to discuss things with only people who agree with me. It seems like a weak minded trait.

Are you afraid to have your beliefs challenge? Do you lack the confidence to be exposed to contrary ideas? Perhaps you could sek counselling.

Madness of King George seems a pretty good historical analagy for the current state of affairsthe utter ill reasoned mess we are in, with Georgie telling us to push on into the big muddy.

And Bozo's seems a fair description of the idiots like Rumsfeld who managed to forget the lessons of Vietnam as the pushed us into the Iraq debacle.

Just because you do not like the ideas does not make them hyperbole. And your intolerance to the ideas of others is not a reason for those who like to exchange ideas with people of different beliefs to go to other monocultures.

AQ is stronger-that was the conclusion of many intel reports. For instance before we invaded there was little or no AQ presence in Iraq, now they are widely spread throughout the country. That evidence. But of course you probably don't remember that.

Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well he started this thread for discussion. He might have been aiming for certain responses, but I think most of us will forgive daruma for that. He's our own ornery libertarian

I don't have a particular problem with deadlines. I think a deadline like, "Our troops must be out in 6 months" is rubbish.

But if our deadline was, "We want to have A and B accomplished by (month and year here) so we can move onto C and D" seems good to me. (Or maybe some of you would prefer letters closer to the end of the alphabet [Smile] )

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You ASSume way too much without knowing a thing about me.

If I didn't like people around who disagree with me, I CERTAINLY would not be a long standing regular around here.

Afraid of having my beliefs challenged? LMAO

The point is most of the liberal/Democrat/lefty people that regularly post here use far more intellectually competent arguments backed by facts and are more than willing to get into an exchange of ideas, rather than what you have demonstrated so far: cute little nicknames and lame-brained hyperbole pronounced as if it were unquestionable facts.

Take a look around here and tell me if you see anyone else using the kind of crap you've been spewing - King Georgie...bozos...etc. You won't even find crap like "Hitllary" or "Obama Bin Laden" or other equivalent nomenclature endemic to right-wing hyperbole found in places like freeperville.

As I said, DU or DK wholeheartedly embrace the mindless rhetoric and spewing of leftist talking points you've been regurgitating here.

Engage the debate intelligently or go to where the standards are more on your level.

Have a good day. [Smile]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I stand by my statments. George Bush is acting a lot like George III, right up to his disconnect with reality.

And bozo is an excellent term for the genius of leading us into Iraq in a war justified by lies, without having a clear exit strategy/plan for victory.

Right up with mission creep and the many madnesses we have repeated. Wonderful job making defeat almost inevitable.

If you think you can challenge the ideas, feel free to. So far haven't seen it, but anthing is possible.

Trying to shoo off opposing viewpoints is not the sign of having a lot of intellectual courage.

Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seems like he wanted to set up a little stalking horse.

Either the Dems cut suport for our troops (HORRORS!!!)

Or they betray the voters

Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Again, time to enact the war powers act. This President and his "I have unrestrained power" BS needs to experience checks and balances.
Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't have a particular problem with deadlines. I think a deadline like, "Our troops must be out in 6 months" is rubbish.
FOX likes to characterize the Dem cut-n-run position that way, ignoring the larger objectives that they also talk about. Can you name a Congressional Dem or Gopper whose thinking is that limited?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeftyPatriot:
Again, time to enact the war powers act.

[DOH] Look it up. They enacted that DECADES ago. Some of it is still in force, although there are some parts that the Supreme Court overturned as unconstitutional, and some parts that they said that the Supreme Court has said are a "political question" which I'll let you look up along with "stalking horse" and "common-law marriage" and other terms that you misuse.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with Pete's original Saigon analogy.

Daruma, I don't think they have the votes yet. Nor do I think that the election of the democrats to power was about putting an immediate end to the war. It was about doing what they're doing with this 'resolution'. A rebuff to GW. Making the point that we want out. But not at any cost. As Pete explained in his first post.

Nice attempt at driving a wedge between dems and the people they voted for, while at the same time making the dems in power look weak. It's just more complicated than that.

Edited to add: See Lefty, Daruma is one of my best friends here, and we don't agree on anything. He's devious, but at least he's subtle. [Smile]

KE

[ January 26, 2007, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Animist
Member
Member # 674

 - posted      Profile for Animist   Email Animist   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know....and this is speaking as someone who has opposed the war from day one (or from day negative 60, thinking of a protest in January 2003)....from a strategic point of view publicizing a "deadline" for troop withdrawl is completely insane. Even publicly announcing deadlines for the completion of strategic goals is a little stupid--

"The water and electrical infrastructure throughout the country will be restored by March. Jaish al Mahdi will be eliminated by June. Negotiations with Ansar al Sunna et al will begin in August. Al Qaida in Iraq will be eliminated by September. New elections in November; troop withdrawl in January 08."

If I am a member of any insurgent group and I read this, I know that I can embarrass and discredit the United States and the Iraqi government by keeping the pressure on critical infrastructure past teh deadline. If I am Moqtada, I know when to prepare my defenses; if I am one of his enemies I know I can either relax my attacks against him, thus enabling him to better harm the Americans. OR I can increase my attacks against the Mahdi Army and its dependants, knowing they will soon be eliminated--this might aid the US immediately in its fight against al Sadr, but in the press it looks like (and IS) more sectarian violence, thus further discrediting the US and Iraqi governments.

The examples go on. Assuming we want victory (which is quite an assumption, given that 1. I'm not sure exactly what "victory" in this case means and 2. I have more than a few problems with supporting "victory" in a war of aggression) announcing a deadline by which we MUST either achieve it or withdraw is literally suicidal. Deadlines vastly raise the possibility of our defeat. It would be much more moral to simply withdraw now instead of allowing our soldiers to die (and kill!) for another 6 months, 2 years, or whatever before finally withdrawing in defeat.

[ January 26, 2007, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Animist ]

Posts: 461 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TLynch
Member
Member # 3581

 - posted      Profile for TLynch   Email TLynch   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would just like to point out that Republicans had the votes to pass a number of things for years. (ie, English as offical language, secure borders and anti-immigration laws, abortion, ect ect) Yet they did nothing, but I did hear that now that the Republicans are no longer in control one of them put a resolution up to vote for English as an official language up for voting. lol I'm sure that will pass both the democratically controlled House and Senate now!!

The idea I guess is to appear like you care about your consituents, not to actually do what they expect you to do. Now that the Republicans can't actually get anything passed they will push their conservative agenda as to appear like they are fighting for the wishes of their constituents. It's a pretty pathetic attempt in my eyes, but it fools all the idiots out there voting them in. I used to be one of em! lol

FYI, all the examples about can be said about Democrats as well. They are all the same...the same side of the same worthless penny.

Posts: 267 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Animist
Member
Member # 674

 - posted      Profile for Animist   Email Animist   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How is the "deadline" different (by which I mean, morally superior) to Kissinger's "reasonable interval" in Vietnam?
Posts: 461 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tlynch, abso-mutha-f'ing-lutely.

Pointing out what the Dems are doing does not in any way mitigate, excuse or condone the Republicans from there role in selling out there base to pander to the mythical moderate middle.

However, the Republicans have already paid there price when their base didn't bother to show up and put them back into power.

What this all illustrates is that the two party system has really become nothing more than a shell game...the Republicrats and Democans are just two sides of the same coin.

KE - I am not "trying" to do anything. I just find it amusing. As I said, when I voted for Dubya in 2000, he immediately started working on passing the tax cuts platform he campaigned on.

There was no "non-binding resolution, telling congress that they should cut taxes."

If he had, I would be far more disillusioned with him than I already am. For one thing, I wouldn't have voted for him in '04. But I have learned my lesson - I will never vote for a "compassionate conservative" ever, ever, ever again.

Libertarian straight party ticket vote for me in '08...and the "threat of Hillary getting elected" will not persuade me to vote for whoever the Republicons nominate like it did with John Kerry.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 869

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's too early for me to declare I'm voting a straight Libertarian ticket, but I'm right there by you Daruma.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1