Where's Maverick? Funny Picture Caption!

That's not sad. Its called a community.

If you want every thread to be over-moderated and to strictly stick to the topic laid out in the title then you are free to create your own site and message board. May I suggest www.boringbuzz.com as a web address.

Sema said:
And if you can honestly say the Hilary and Bill are less liars then bush you have something wrong. Everytime I see hilary now its a different view, atleast bush belives in something.

Yeah... Bush believes in domestic wiretapping, warrantless arrests, forced democracy, murder and spending money we don't have. Of course, he doesn't believe in the Kyoto Treaty.

You're right - its soooo great to have a president with beliefs.

^Juggalottus, you crack me up!

Heh,"where's Maverick? Funny Picture Caption" turned into politics, thats a community?

The only good thing that ever came out of pointbuzz was mr. scott, besides that, this is a good looking site with a bunch of dumbass adults talking.

If the discussion here isn't your cup of tea, why are you participating? Instead of letting everyone here know how dumb we are, just move along.

bholcomb said:
Yeah, no kidding. People went out in droves in 96 to re-elect the biggest liar ever.

I guess some people think that lying about where you hide your privates is a little different than lying about your case for war when thousands are killed and billions are spent.

Reminds me of the recent Family Guy episode where Lois runs against Mayor West. No one listens to her when she talks about actual issues, so she just starts saying "9/11!" and everyone votes for her. Stop me if you've heard that one before...

^ hahaha great episode... I love Family Guy!

this is a good looking site with a bunch of dumbass adults talking.

No... there's plenty of dumb*** kids here with us.

BTW, If you don't appreciate the community here, why on earth are you here? So what if the topic goes off track for awhile or even for good if it's spent. People have debates as a way of voicing their opinions, sometimes with a little friendly fire here & there, but overall it's often stimulating. A little reflection on others point of view helps us to grow. I may not ever agree with what you say, but as was said long ago, "I'll fight for your right to say it".

WOW! I was just stating that I thought it was funny that Magnum was mistaken for Maverick and it turned in to this, Oh how a thread can change! But its even funnier to read this heated battle than to read a mistaken picture caption! HA!

Jeff said:

bholcomb said:
Yeah, no kidding. People went out in droves in 96 to re-elect the biggest liar ever.

I guess some people think that lying about where you hide your privates is a little different than lying about your case for war when thousands are killed and billions are spent.

Reminds me of the recent Family Guy episode where Lois runs against Mayor West. No one listens to her when she talks about actual issues, so she just starts saying "9/11!" and everyone votes for her. Stop me if you've heard that one before...

Absolutely 100% agree Jeff....

Gee let's think for a minute, which is the bigger lie?

1)Lying about not keeping your privates in your pants with an intern or few and getting it deep doo doo with your wife...

OR

2)Lying about about your "creditable evidence" for your case for war and getting 1000's of your armed forces killed, spending trillions of money we don't have on the war (with no real plan on how to raise money to pay for the war), and getting the nation's reputation in WAY deep doo doo with the much of the rest of the world...

People may be allowed to have their opinion.
Still for people who think lie #1 above is a bigger lie, I just have to shake my head and wonder when people will just wake up and take a good look at what good v.s. all the bad crap that's happened since this current administration (and his cronies) have been in power.

Okay, Bush lied.

However, Congress had the power back in 2003 to vote against sending troops to Iraq, did they not?

Stop rewriting history. John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and countless other politicians that have tried running for president under the theme "Bush Lied!" voted back in 2003 to send the troops overseas. Why the hell would anybody vote for someone that lacked a spine and not take responsibility for their vote? Remember the quote? "It's true I voted for the war before I voted against it?" Why anybody in the Democratic party was sold on that guy is waaaaay beyond me. Does insulting those who voted for Bush make up for the sheer stupidity of the Democrats that picked someone who had no stance whatsoever on anything other than "Bush Lied!", "Halliburton!", "Oil!"? I wonder.

Congress still has the power today to pull the troops out of Iraq. Why won't they do it?

The only Democrat front runner that can back up his integrity from the beginning is Kucinich, but his views doesn't remotely represent mine.

Oh and BTW, I've seen that Family Guy episode, Jeff mentioned. Hil-freaking-arious! Because it's true. Mention anything about 9/11 and suddenly the tone changes. *** Edited 6/7/2007 2:05:44 PM UTC by HeyIsntThatRob?***

^ - not entirely. Congress does not have the ability to move troops or independently deploy them into action. HOWEVER, they do control the purse-strings. Except that for all of their bluster about being anti-war, none of them are willing to vote for a bill that does not provide funding for Iraq, because that is leaving the troops out in the cold and is political suicide.

On top of that, none of them are willing to vote on a straight war funding bill. They all want their little earmarks thrown into it as well.

Why is it that changing one's mind in light of new evidence is considered 'flip-flopping', while 'staying the course' is considered noble? Are we that primitive of a people that we don't see the problem with that logic?

And with regard to the troop funding bill, don't shift blame. Bush could have (and should have) included war funding in his 2007 budget, but didn't because he knew that it would not only draw a hail storm of negative media attention, but would also face hurdles in getting approved. Instead, he chose to go through the back door, so to speak, and rely on an emergency funding bill, which puts the political pressure on congress to provide it, otherwise they become the 'bad guys'. Furthermore, if Bush cares so much about the troops, why in the hell would he be so stubborn about approving what congress has already proposed? If you believe it has anything to do with the 'pork', get your head out of the sand, and take a look at any number of bills he has passed that make this emergency funding package look vegan by comparison. And finally, regardless of the caveats, if this administration were truly dedicated to the troops, why does everything they do (WPK, lack of proper armor, etc) indicate otherwise?

I agree with you that Bush should put the Iraq War funding into his annual budget rather than making Congress draft and pass a separate bill. And that this is not the only bill that includes pork.

My point is that Congress has but one action for pulling us out of this war, and that is to cut funding. They don't have the authorization to pass a bill demanding that troops be withdrawn, but they do have the authority to limit funding for troops deployed to a certain area.

But since the leading sponsors of the latest bill had to buy votes from their own party with pork, either shows that Democrats are NOT as united against this war as we thought. Or that Democrats are just as shady of politicians as the Republicans and both sides need to be cleaned out. I'm going to say that its a bit of both.

Well, I agree that its both, and I'd never claim that the Democrats are anything but marginally more ethical than the current administration.

My main point was in response to the shifting of blame for the current situation off of Bush an onto Congress - and the 2003 Congress, no less. Its absurd at best, and every time I hear it, its almost like I'm witnessing someone channel Limbaugh or Hannity, and it makes me want to move to Canada.

Yeah, its that irritating. ;)

EDITED for clarity.
*** Edited 6/7/2007 2:43:57 PM UTC by djDaemon***

Blame is with both. For all the rhetoric that Democrats used to gain control in November, for them to pass a bill that they had no authorization to pass (tying withdrawl to funding) is just BS. If you are against the war then vote against it. Don't tip-toe around it, stand up for what you believe in (and this goes for any Senator or Rep who is against the war, regardless of party lines).

I agree - those of us that want the war ended (you know, that 70% 'minority') would completely understand if there were a showdown between Congress and Bush. That should be obvious, given the administration's approval rating.

We had many problems before Bush ever took office (I am talking decades prior). Our World Trade Center was bombed years before 9/11. We Americans have been bombed at our overseas embassys for many years. I am not a huge political person, but when someone sent me that email (sorry, can't find it, or I would share), I was amazed at what I didn't know. Our country "kept hitting the snooze button."

I do not like us at war, I feel we have gotton absolutely no where with it. Our troops should be home fighting at our borders and our money being spent here in our country.

I am for peace. No more war.

I'm not shifting blame on anyone else dj. I'm at the point where it would be nice if we brought our troops home. I have friends out there already and pray for their safe return. What I'm sick of is that people all preach that Bush is a liar and that nobody else is at fault for Iraq, which is completely untrue. It was voted on by our 535ish members of Congress and it passed.

And Jugga is dead on about funding. There's no way any sane politician would cut the funding of the troops! It would look terrible at re-election time. So instead they pass non-binding resolutions on what they thing and feel instead of "doing" something about it. I'm tired of the politicians that sit there and spout off things when they themselves won't (not can't) do a darn thing about it. It's all about winning votes and if words speak louder than actions, which seems to be the case, then they will continue griping and rewriting history to their constituents instead of fixing the problem.

BTW, many others might want to get their voiceboxes and pullstrings replaced. Because the whole, "oh it's like listening to Rush or Hannity" thing is tiresome, instead of arguing my point, they have to counteract it with something completely unrelated. Besides I haven't listened to Rush in over a year and never listened to Hannity. Glenn Beck is where its at!

Gah! Politics suck.

JuggaLotus said:
But since the leading sponsors of the latest bill had to buy votes from their own party with pork, either shows that Democrats are NOT as united against this war as we thought. Or that Democrats are just as shady of politicians as the Republicans and both sides need to be cleaned out. I'm going to say that its a bit of both.

I like your second idea. The thing I most dislike about this country is that so often the 2-party system completely fails at producing a single quality candidate.

This really stinks when it comes down to voting time and you're torn between voting for the 3rd-party candidate that most closely matches your views and voting for the realistic candidate that more closely matches your views than the other realistic candidate.