Re: OT: American solders keep dying

In article <0001HW.C2A53BB3015DEFF8F0182648@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
George Graves <gmgraves2@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:21:50 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote
(in article <noone-68C011.10215025062007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

In article <C2A5314B.853CB%CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Steve Carroll" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
noone-BF7215.08142525062007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 6/25/07 7:14 AM:


A couple of years ago your statement would have started a long
discussion
with lots of accusations of anti-Americanism. Now even the
conservatives
can't really attempt to defend this stuff. They'll be a few insults,
and
the thread will die in about 10 posts. Their might be one or two "You
just
want to cut and run." slogans, but no one will attempt to pretend that
there is some real chance of success in Iraq.

My only response to that is you can no longer blame the Republicans
alone
for this lingering national catastrophe. The Democrats control both
houses
of Congress. They've been sitting since the January 2007 session
started.
Yet, I have seen no attempts by them to float any bill bringing the
troops
home.

Then you ought to pull your head out of the sand. There have been
several attempts to cut funding for the war. Bush says he'll veto
any bill that cuts war funding.

Sigh... Bush is not paying for the war out of his own pocket.

Such *deep* analysis from you, Steve. LOL!

No analysis required, Snit... just a simple understanding of how the
government
works... a thing that obviously escapes you.

This is just another example of your absolutely absurd comments that shows
you cannot understand simple concepts. Edwin *never* suggested, hinted,
implied or otherwise indicated that Bush was "paying for the war out of
his
own pocket." Never.


Anyone that can comprehend what they read can plainly see that Edwin's
answer

was non-responsive. It was pointed out that the Dems now control both
houses...
it doesn't matter what Bush vetoes (which is why it was irrelevant to bring
it
up)... if Bush gets no funding there is no war.



Bush's veto is not the end of the road. The Congress can override any
Presidential veto.

Yes, I'm aware of that... but I was talking about the issue of the Dems
*funding* the war. No funds = no war... Bush has nothing to do with it.

--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
"You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: American solders keep dying
    ... several attempts to cut funding for the war. ... Bush is not paying for the war out of his own pocket. ... No analysis required, Snit... ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Democrats tell Bush where to stick his negotiators
    ... America has told Congress to CONTINUE FUNDING the War.... ... "war", or, shall we say, exercise in creative profiteering. ... Democrats are now saying the military has enough money ... How many funding Bills can Bush veto before the public holds the Dems ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Democrats tell Bush where to stick his negotiators
    ... America has told Congress to CONTINUE FUNDING the ... "war", or, shall we say, exercise in creative ... Democrats are now saying the military has enough money ... Republican backing to impeach and convict Bush. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Democrats tell Bush where to stick his negotiators
    ... America has told Congress to CONTINUE FUNDING the ... "war", or, shall we say, exercise in creative ... Democrats are now saying the military has enough money ... Republican backing to impeach and convict Bush. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Democrats tell Bush where to stick his negotiators
    ... America has told Congress to CONTINUE FUNDING the War.... ... "war", or, shall we say, exercise in creative profiteering. ... Republican backing to impeach and convict Bush. ...
    (alt.politics)