Defending the Truth

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

The point being expressed here is that the Democrats are spineless for choosing the latter, thereby putting Party politics before country and the opportunity to end an illegal war and end the killing of both American and Iraqi lives.

And they're indecisive because their strategy (2) isn't working; even though, generally, a majority of people are happy about Democrats being in control of Congress again, approval ratings for the Presidency are still higher than Congress. Because Congress is seen as an indecisive body full of plutocrats that are influenced from big money...and the Democrats haven't done anything to change that as promised but instead continue to take place in it. Likewise, I believe some Republican presidential candidates are ahead of Democratic candidates in the polls.

If the complaint about Congress is that they don't get anything done, and that they'd rather put big money and Party politics ahead of that ideal, then the Democrats would have gotten much favorable outcomes by pursuing strategy 1.

Originally Posted by billybobama

Well I am glad you have an opinion and misinformation but that and a quarter will not even buy you a cup of coffee. Try and posting something with substance. By the way I would throw away that Crystal Ball you have, they really do not work.

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

The point being expressed here is that the Democrats are spineless for choosing the latter, thereby putting Party politics before country and the opportunity to end an illegal war and end the killing of both American and Iraqi lives.

And they're indecisive because their strategy (2) isn't working; even though, generally, a majority of people are happy about Democrats being in control of Congress again, approval ratings for the Presidency are still higher than Congress. Because Congress is seen as an indecisive body full of plutocrats that are influenced from big money...and the Democrats haven't done anything to change that as promised but instead continue to take place in it. Likewise, I believe some Republican presidential candidates are ahead of Democratic candidates in the polls.

If the complaint about Congress is that they don't get anything done, and that they'd rather put big money and Party politics ahead of that ideal, then the Democrats would have gotten much favorable outcomes by pursuing strategy 1.

Originally Posted by billybobama

Okay Katman, I will try again to educate you. Let's pull apart this post.

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

As if you have any grasp to the capacity of my education...let alone in a position where you should educate me.



It is my contention, no my understanding of basic logic and common sense, that it is facts which cannot be debated. Well you loose right out of the shoot. Opinions are like Rectums. Everbody has one. Debateing everybody's Rectum is a waste of time.


Here is where it becomes grey. I am for what is ever best for my country. I believe the Republican Party is a negative influence on this country, but judging by many of the Democrats' beliefs as well as past actions; it has led me to believe that the Democrats aren't much better. Pepsi might be a little sweeter than Coke, but in the end it's all cola.Please try and use specifics, again your opinions are not worth piss.

That being said, however, I would much rather have seen the war end than the destruction of the Republican Party. And it is my contention that the Democratic Party would be much more favorable to people if they had in fact ended the war. Another worthless opinion.



I don't see your point. That which is unconstitutional is illegal. Besides, "illegal" is more encompassing in order express its violations of international law. The Iraq War was legal because Congress did abdigate their authority. But Iraq was zero threat to the U.S.A. Therefore making it Unconstitutional.


I'm glad that we can agree upon this premise. But perhaps it is more important that we end unnecessary killing rather than work at destroying the image of a political party? Each to his own. I want the Fascist Republican Party destroyed.



I don't see any evidence to suggest that my conclusion on that basis is incorrect. In fact, the evidence leads to the conclusion that many people are disappointed with the Democratic Party now that they chose to back off and submit to the White House in funding an illegal war without steps toward withdraw or at least timetables - something that the majority of Americans agree to pursue. Democrats have done exactly what you have suggested. George Bush has vetoed every bill.


Have I ever even expressed this sentiment?



I wasn't aware Congress was comprised of 600 people...I was speaking in round numbers. What have we got in the House - 489? - Of course the Senate is 100.



It is true they do not have enough votes to override a presidential veto. I think I acknowledged this point. However they have enough votes to block any war funding bill that does not contain steps toward withdraw. Therefore if the Republicans and the White House refuse to sign into law such war funding bills, then their war will simply not be funded. Either way the war can be ended within the powers possessed by the Democratic Party in Congress. It's called the power of the purse and any majority (theoretically a minority also in some circumstances with the ability to filibuster in the Senate) can possess it without needing full control over the legislation process.



The poll data online for hypothetical match-ups seem to be limited; because the accuracy of hypothetical match-ups are limited. However, the trend seems to be that when asked hypothetical match-ups, the Republicans usually tend to dominate. Both McCain and Guiliani would defeat Hillary Clinton (the Democratic front runner) according to a poll conducted by Quinnipiac University (link), for example. But from what I've seen on television this seems to be the general consensus.

But I would agree at the extent to how these hypothetical match-ups are limited in their accuracy. But if they do show anything, it is to show that the discontent with the Republican Party and how it would allegedly effect the 2008 Presidential election is for the most part exaggerated.

Originally Posted by billybobama

Okay