Debate and Discussion

For the liberals who voted the Democrats in to "get us out of Iraq"
warren at 10:14PM, Aug. 10, 2007
(offline)
posts: 110
joined: 1-9-2007
TnTComic
We lost HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of our troops in Vietnam. Comparing Iraq to Vietnam is kinda' silly.
Let's not exaggerate for effect.

Battle deaths 47,424
Other deaths in service (theater) 10,785
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 32,000

Not even 100,000 American casualites. Please don't pull facts out of your ass to make a point.
Warren

On the Duck:
Title -updating! ~30 strips!
PAC -New! >10 strips.

Others:
Spare Change -updating! ~2000 strips!
Mass Production -hiatus. ~300 strips.

This guy does Piss Mario, Stick, and Filler!
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:48PM
TnTComic at 6:58AM, Aug. 11, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
warren
TnTComic
We lost HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of our troops in Vietnam. Comparing Iraq to Vietnam is kinda' silly.
Let's not exaggerate for effect.

Battle deaths 47,424
Other deaths in service (theater) 10,785
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 32,000

Not even 100,000 American casualites. Please don't pull facts out of your ass to make a point.


I googled “Vietnam battles” and clicked on the first link.

My bad, but please, you don't need to say that I “pull facts out of my ass”. In this case I was just not diligent in looking for more sources.

It was my mistake, but you don't have to be a dick in pointing it out.


warren
Let's not forget the “politics as usual” acts of putting in totally unrelated projects into the war bills, so if the Republicans rightly vote against the pork, the Democrats can point and say “we tried to stop this, but just didn't have the votes.”

Totally unrelated projects… to cutting money for the war? Now who's “pulling facts out of their ass”? Find us some of this pork on bills to cut the war budget. I'd love to see it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Vindibudd at 9:17AM, Aug. 11, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
TnTComic
warren
Let's not forget the “politics as usual” acts of putting in totally unrelated projects into the war bills, so if the Republicans rightly vote against the pork, the Democrats can point and say “we tried to stop this, but just didn't have the votes.”

Totally unrelated projects… to cutting money for the war? Now who's “pulling facts out of their ass”? Find us some of this pork on bills to cut the war budget. I'd love to see it.

Dude, just… dude.

Retreat and Butter
Are Democrats in the House voting for farm subsidies or withdrawal from Iraq?


My favorite part?

Democrats who want to force a withdrawal should vote against war appropriations. They should not seek to use pork to buy a majority for an unconditional retreat that the majority does not support.

Here is the point. They can't get any support for withdrawal without buying people off. What this means, is that the American public is not wanting us to pull out of Iraq “right now” like so many leftists are obsessed with.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
SpANG at 10:27AM, Aug. 11, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
Someone
Here is the point. They can't get any support for withdrawal without buying people off.
Yeah, republicans never did anything like that. Can anyone say Jack Abramoff?

I'm not sure if conservatives don't get the following point, or they just ignore it to push through their own agenda, but…

Some liberals may be Democrats, but Democrats (as a political body) ARE NOT LIBERALS. You can interchange the words “conservative” and “Republican”. You can't do the same thing with “Democrats” and “liberals”. At least, not anymore.

A lot of liberals (like myself) voted for Dems hoping, wishing that they would make a difference. They really haven't, at least not much of one. They are just “slightly more to the left” than republicans. They disable bills by crippling it with pork, they spend money where it isn't needed, they take payoffs for their projects, they are exploiting the fact that they are in office to push through their agenda. The only difference is that they use the whole “we are doing this because the people have spoken” bull crap instead of using “terror” scare tactics.

It's the same old same old in my opinion. In short, liberals have no voice in Washington. If we did, then we would be out of Iraq.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:52PM
Vindibudd at 12:51PM, Aug. 11, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
SpANG
Someone
Here is the point. They can't get any support for withdrawal without buying people off.
Yeah, republicans never did anything like that. Can anyone say Jack Abramoff?

This is not a contest to see how many lobbyists we can mention that the other side uses (which I could very happily do, just not here). This is a thread about why the liberals should not be angry with the Democrats about not getting the country out of Iraq, and that reason is simply because the American public as a whole does not want unconditional withdrawal.

SpANG
Some liberals may be Democrats, but Democrats (as a political body) ARE NOT LIBERALS. You can interchange the words “conservative” and “Republican”. You can't do the same thing with “Democrats” and “liberals”. At least, not anymore.

I don't think this is necessarily true. There are tons of Republicans that do not consider GWB conservative, nor do they consider Olympia Snow, Spector, and some others as conservative either. I also know that some Democrats are “moderate” but the ones that everyone hears from are not moderate.

SpANG
A lot of liberals (like myself) voted for Dems hoping, wishing that they would make a difference. They really haven't, at least not much of one. They are just “slightly more to the left” than republicans. They disable bills by crippling it with pork, they spend money where it isn't needed, they take payoffs for their projects, they are exploiting the fact that they are in office to push through their agenda. The only difference is that they use the whole “we are doing this because the people have spoken” bull crap instead of using “terror” scare tactics.

It's the same old same old in my opinion. In short, liberals have no voice in Washington. If we did, then we would be out of Iraq.

Yeah, pretty much.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
warren at 12:54PM, Aug. 11, 2007
(offline)
posts: 110
joined: 1-9-2007
SpANG
Someone
Here is the point. They can't get any support for withdrawal without buying people off.
Yeah, republicans never did anything like that.
Like I said, business as usual. The elections of '94 put the Republicans in the majority for the first time in 40 years, mainly because of all the Dem pork spending from earlier. The Reps did the same exact thing after a while, and it cost them.

SpANG
You can interchange the words “conservative” and “Republican”. You can't do the same thing with “Democrats” and “liberals”. At least, not anymore.
Nope. Not all Reps think we should be in Iraq, think that welfare should be cut, or think women's sufferage should be ended. Many Reps are just as level-headed as Dems.

SpANG
(Democrats) are just “slightly more to the left” than republicans. They disable bills by crippling it with pork, they spend money where it isn't needed, they take payoffs for their projects, they are exploiting the fact that they are in office to push through their agenda. The only difference is that they use the whole “we are doing this because the people have spoken” bull crap instead of using “terror” scare tactics.
Agreed.
Warren

On the Duck:
Title -updating! ~30 strips!
PAC -New! >10 strips.

Others:
Spare Change -updating! ~2000 strips!
Mass Production -hiatus. ~300 strips.

This guy does Piss Mario, Stick, and Filler!
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:48PM
Phantom Penguin at 2:54PM, Aug. 11, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
TnTComic
Phantom Penguin
Iraq has had no battles eh? Try Operation Phantom Fury (the recapture of Fallujah). It was the largest battle since the battle of Hue in vietnam. Or the battle for Baghdad in '03.
And the main fighters do have a uniform its pretty much a all black jumpsuit. We nicknamed them Ninjas.

I'm talking about “battles” in the traditional sense. Large scale battles against an opposing army. “Battle” can be used to describe clearing an area that has entrenched fighter, yeah, but that's not what i'm talking about. Antietam was a battle. Waterloo was a battle. Driving guerrillas out of an area is a battle too, but doesn't really compare to the other two.

Major Battles of the Vietnam War

*Battle at the Hamlet of Ap Bac - January 2, 1963
*Siege of Khe Sanh - January 21, 1968
*Tet Offensive - January 30
*First Battle of Saigon - March 7, 1968
*Eastertide Offensive - March 30, 1972
*Fall of Saigon - April 29, 1975

We lost HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of our troops in Vietnam. Comparing Iraq to Vietnam is kinda' silly.


We didn't have much of a base in SA before 9/11. If anything the 9/11 attacks provoked us into making us look even worse, which they were meant to do.

It didn't matter how big or small our military presence was in Saudi Arabia after Desert Storm. It was just that we had one. They welcomed us in to take care of Saddam, under the assumption that we'd leave afterward. We didn't. The 9-11 attacks were not meant to “make us look even worse”. They were meant to make us leave.

How can a people who havn't been touched by war be sick of it?

Are you serious?

1. You don't have to be touched by war to be against the death and destruction it causes.

2. The economic woes in our country make alot of americans question why we're pouring billions of dollars into this campaign, instead of keeping it in america.

3. Many americans believe (and have been backed up by our intelligence community) that this war is making the war on terror WORSE, not better. The war has done more for recruitment than anything else we could have done.

We should be worried about the Iraqis out and out turning 100% to the fighters side. Americans can't handle blood, its been that why for decades.

Americans can handle blood, but it has to be for a just cause. Desert Storm 1? No problem. This? Big problem. One was to drive a tyrant out of a sovereign nation. The other was… WMDs? Terror? Torture rooms? What was it again? Don't lie to the american people, give just cause for war, and we'll ra-ra-ra till the sun goes down.

I fuckin' love war. If my tv is on, i'm watching the History Channel or the Military Channel. My idea of heaven is flying an A-10. Blow shit up, rock the fuck on. But not for bullshit reasons.

As bad as it sounds, for the amount of dead fighters we have left behind the amount of american dead is a best case thing when it comes to the type of war we are in.

Huh?

-The battle over Fallujah was a force on force deal. They had trenchs, strongpoints and indirect fire support. They fought us in our kind of fight, and they lost big and have never tried since.
Vietnam's losses were closer to 50,000. not 100,000

-If you look and Al-queda's writings and their speeches they wanted to bring America to war and try to unite the middle east to fight the west. Unrealistic, but that was thier goal.

- I really don't know why you think this war is any different that many others we were in. In most cases the government fabricates things to make the other side look 10X worse to get the populace to support it. The higher ups just havn't figured out that doesn't work anymore. And if you think Americans have never tourtred before your out of your mind.

-what I meant was in a irregular war, most of the time the attacking force tkaes many more losses. (look at the Chechnya wars)
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
SpANG at 7:24PM, Aug. 11, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
Someone
This is a thread about why the liberals should not be angry with the Democrats about not getting the country out of Iraq, and that reason is simply because the American public as a whole does not want unconditional withdrawal.

Yeah, I get the thread. You are saying that as a liberal I should shut up because most of America is not on my side. You're saying that I should just through my hands up and say “Oh, well. The majority has spoken. I guess my opinion doesn't count.” That just seems like a silly argument. Because America has done some of its stupidest things because of “majority rule”.

Even if a majority of Americans DO want us to stay in Iraq (which I doubt at this point) I still think it's a horrible idea, and it's not going to solve a thing. We went in there under false pretenses, we are now OCCUPIERS, and a country that never attacked America is now in worse shape than it ever was under Saddam Hussein.

The only thing our staying in Iraq does is build hatred for my country, drain our economy, kill our kids, and embolden more terrorist activity. And I'm angry that Democrats, Republicans, and (according to you) a majority of America do not see this. I am even more angry if they are willfully ignoring it.

Sorry, you'll have to come up with a better argument to keep me from being angry at that.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:52PM
Vindibudd at 10:28AM, Aug. 12, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
SpANG
Yeah, I get the thread. You are saying that as a liberal I should shut up because most of America is not on my side. You're saying that I should just through my hands up and say “Oh, well. The majority has spoken. I guess my opinion doesn't count.” That just seems like a silly argument. Because America has done some of its stupidest things because of “majority rule”.

No, of course you shouldn't “shut up.” What I am saying is that you should realize that the reason the Democrats are not succeeding in getting the country out of Iraq is because they do not have the power to do it. You can be angry all you want and you can threaten to vote your people out of office, but in doing so you will not be closer to your stated goal. Of course your opinion counts even if you are not in the majority. I'm not on the side that wants people to keep from expressing their opinion. But expressing your opinion does not equal getting what you want. Sometimes those things go together, but not in this case. If I were to ask you if you were happy with the Democrats in congress right now, the chances are that you would say that you were not and the reason for that would be because the country is still in Iraq. You are not going to vote in a more left-wing set of leaders than you have now. They simply do not have the votes to force unconditional withdrawal. I'm just trying to get you to see that. You seem to be determined that I have a right-side-left-side fight with you and that is not what I am looking for.

SpANG
Even if a majority of Americans DO want us to stay in Iraq (which I doubt at this point) I still think it's a horrible idea, and it's not going to solve a thing. We went in there under false pretenses, we are now OCCUPIERS, and a country that never attacked America is now in worse shape than it ever was under Saddam Hussein.

That is a whole other debate.

SpANG
The only thing our staying in Iraq does is build hatred for my country, drain our economy, kill our kids, and embolden more terrorist activity. And I'm angry that Democrats, Republicans, and (according to you) a majority of America do not see this. I am even more angry if they are willfully ignoring it.
Sorry, you'll have to come up with a better argument to keep me from being angry at that.

Well I don't think it is “according to me” because if it were true that the majority of Americans wanted us out of Iraq unconditionally then we wouldn't be there. Majority of Americans Wanting Specific Result on Iraq = Veto-proof majority. You can be angry that all those people do not see things the way you do. That's your decision, clearly, I'm just trying to help you focus your energy on something more productive for your goal and that is not voting out your Democratic candidates. I can guarantee you that much. In fact this reminds me of a lot of conservatives that had a giant heart attack over the Republicans and their drunken sailor spending and immigration policy. It was all, THEY ARE NOT CONSERVATIVES! WE'LL SHOW THEM! THEY NEED TO BE TAUGHT A LESSON AND I AM NOT GOING TO VOTE! NYAH NYAH NYAH.

Result: Welcome Nancy Pelosi from the liberal capital of the planet, San Francisco, YOUR new Speaker of The House.

Now all those conservatives feel stupid.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
TnTComic at 11:40AM, Aug. 12, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Vindibudd
Well I don't think it is “according to me” because if it were true that the majority of Americans wanted us out of Iraq unconditionally then we wouldn't be there. Majority of Americans Wanting Specific Result on Iraq = Veto-proof majority.

This administration hasn't given a hoot about what americans want, and until recently all their homies in the congress and the senate were happy to give them whatever they wanted for fear of being painted as anti-american.

The majority of this country does want us out of Iraq. Polls have shown that for quite some time. The congress got the ball rolling on it, moneywise, the senate blocked it, the president threatened veto, and they abandoned it. They made their point.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Vindibudd at 11:50AM, Aug. 12, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
TnTComic
Vindibudd
Well I don't think it is “according to me” because if it were true that the majority of Americans wanted us out of Iraq unconditionally then we wouldn't be there. Majority of Americans Wanting Specific Result on Iraq = Veto-proof majority.

This administration hasn't given a hoot about what americans want, and until recently all their homies in the congress and the senate were happy to give them whatever they wanted for fear of being painted as anti-american.

The majority of this country does want us out of Iraq. Polls have shown that for quite some time. The congress got the ball rolling on it, moneywise, the senate blocked it, the president threatened veto, and they abandoned it. They made their point.


What part of veto-proof majority do you not understand? The part where it represents overwhelming public opinion or the part where it is able to overcome a veto? Because back to the point about polls, you can make opinion polls say anything you want, but the proof of public opinion is found in the representatives that they send to Washington, D.C. Now you might not understand how this works, but that's okay, it doesn't change the reality.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
TnTComic at 12:13PM, Aug. 12, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Vindibudd
What part of veto-proof majority do you not understand? The part where it represents overwhelming public opinion or the part where it is able to overcome a veto?

The part where it represents overwhelming public opinion.

If you want to believe that, you go right ahead. Politicians have voted their own way for a long time, homey. I wish our government was effective at representing the people and their wishes, but its not.


Vindibudd
Because back to the point about polls, you can make opinion polls say anything you want, but the proof of public opinion is found in the representatives that they send to Washington, D.C. Now you might not understand how this works, but that's okay, it doesn't change the reality.

And it also doesn't change the fact that you already said your bit about polls, and I already addressed it, to which you said nothing. I suppose if the polls showed overwhelming support for the war, you'd be crowing about them. But since they hurt your argument, you try to cut them down.

last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Vindibudd at 12:30PM, Aug. 12, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
TnTComic
The part where it represents overwhelming public opinion.

If you want to believe that, you go right ahead. Politicians have voted their own way for a long time, homey. I wish our government was effective at representing the people and their wishes, but its not.

You have no understanding of how the American political system works. The fact of the matter is that your average Sunday School class can terrorize a politician.

Case in point, the recent immigration bill that was deep-sixed after overwhelming public outcry about it. Was it polls? No. It was thousands of calls, letters, emails and all around hell-raising by constituents. But heck, what do I know, politicians ONLY do what THEY want and NEVER listen to THE PEOPLE. EVER. EVER. EVER. EVER. EVER.


TnTComic
And it also doesn't change the fact that you already said your bit about polls, and I already addressed it, to which you said nothing. I suppose if the polls showed overwhelming support for the war, you'd be crowing about them. But since they hurt your argument, you try to cut them down.

No, I wouldn't. I wanted Clinton kicked out of office, but the American majority was against it. Did I sit and cry about how it was unfair? No. I know how the political system works. I ought to for pete's sake, I am political a science major.

last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
mlai at 4:16PM, Aug. 12, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
Governments don't represent the people. They represent the power.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:05PM
Vindibudd at 4:27PM, Aug. 12, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
mlai
Governments don't represent the people. They represent the power.

Which is why the people choose their representatives. Take off the tin hat and step out of the black helicopter.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Kohdok at 4:10PM, Aug. 13, 2007
(online)
posts: 776
joined: 5-18-2007
Vindibudd
Case in point, the recent immigration bill that was deep-sixed after overwhelming public outcry about it. Was it polls? No. It was thousands of calls, letters, emails and all around hell-raising by constituents. But heck, what do I know, politicians ONLY do what THEY want and NEVER listen to THE PEOPLE. EVER. EVER. EVER. EVER. EVER.

Do you honestly think that nobody in Washington is taking any flak for not getting us out of war, and that's the reason we're still in it? I've seen on the internet, in the newspaper, and on television, so much animosity towards the war that I can't wrap my head around your reasoning.

Sure you say we choose our own officials, but often each district only has two or three candidates to choose from. In that case, people pick who they hope will support their views and put the people they believe in into office. It doesn't change the fact that the people they have elected are still people with their own agendas.

The people spoke up as best as they could; they elected a ton of democratic politicians because they were obviously dissatisfied with how the country is being run. What do you think is the cause of so much dissatisfaction? Granted, it wasn't an “Overwhelming majority”, but it does express the current consensus about the state of the union.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:20PM
SpANG at 7:02PM, Aug. 13, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
This argument is pretty much moot for me anyway. I didn't just vote for the Dems to pull us out of Iraq. I voted against the republicans in my state because they are ethically challenged, hypocritical scumbags.

So are we better off having Dems controlling the house and senate rather than the Reps? In my opinion, yep. A little. As a matter of fact, if they stood a little more UNITED like the Republicans always do, more might get done. If you don't think so, tell me why. What exactly did the Republicans do when they had an overwhelming majority?
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:52PM
Vindibudd at 8:14PM, Aug. 13, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
SpANG
This argument is pretty much moot for me anyway. I didn't just vote for the Dems to pull us out of Iraq. I voted against the republicans in my state because they are ethically challenged, hypocritical scumbags.

So are we better off having Dems controlling the house and senate rather than the Reps? In my opinion, yep. A little. As a matter of fact, if they stood a little more UNITED like the Republicans always do, more might get done. If you don't think so, tell me why. What exactly did the Republicans do when they had an overwhelming majority?


Passed more than a minimum wage increase. lol. But seriously, they cut taxes and revenue has increased, the economy is humming along, and they even passed a prescription drug benefit plan that should make the socialists happy. Oh yeah, Mark Foley traded dirty text messages with pages, OH MY GOD!

Were you looking for anything in particular?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Kohdok at 8:52PM, Aug. 13, 2007
(online)
posts: 776
joined: 5-18-2007
Vindibudd
Were you looking for anything in particular?

Maybe he was going for lowered standard on what exactly is considered “fecal matter” in beef. Or maybe it was the gutting of FEMA or the Patriot Act. Maybe it was the reduction in pollution control or the abolishment of standard break time for laborers that he was looking for.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:20PM
TnTComic at 4:47AM, Aug. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Vindibudd
SpANG
What exactly did the Republicans do when they had an overwhelming majority?


Passed more than a minimum wage increase. lol. But seriously, they cut taxes and revenue has increased, the economy is humming along, and they even passed a prescription drug benefit plan that should make the socialists happy. Oh yeah, Mark Foley traded dirty text messages with pages, OH MY GOD!

Yes… they cut taxes and revenue has increased… the economy is humming along… IF YOU'RE RICH.

The other 90% of the country has been taking it up the ass for the past 7 years. Take a look at the housing market, its in the shitter. Has been for some time. I know its real popular to hop on the internet and say what you think is going on, but i'm a family man with a house payment, and things have been fucked for too long. Jobs are leaving this country, the ones that are staying aren't paying shit, and the cost of living is continuing to go through the roof. Shit is fubar, and its exactly what happens when you get Republicans in power.

(I see you conveniently left out the amnesty bullshit for illegal immigrant. Thanks Republicans! That's what we wanted!)
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
warren at 6:12AM, Aug. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 110
joined: 1-9-2007
TnTComic
Jobs are leaving this country, the ones that are staying aren't paying shit, and the cost of living is continuing to go through the roof. Shit is fubar, and its exactly what happens when you get Republicans in power.
You're too young to remember, but the late 70's weren't exactly a bed of roses either. There were lines for gasoline that stretched for blocks. A $5 daily limit on gas and you could only purchase it if your license plate ended in the correct digit.

There was skyrocketing inflation, and the steel mills were starting to close as foreign imports could do the same task for much cheaper. Labor unions wanted stiff tarriffs that would have increased inflation more.

An incompetant President sat powerlessly in office as people halfway across the world held a bunch of Americans hostage under the name of their God. His recommendations to all the problems were to turn down your thermostat. In fact, this President is pretty well known for not getting much of anything accomplished while in office. He would go on to lose in a landslide the likes of which would be unheard of (until his Vice-President ran for office a few years later and was defeated soundly.)

Guess what? It was a Democratic President. Fubar is not related to a political party. It is related to political incompetance.
Warren

On the Duck:
Title -updating! ~30 strips!
PAC -New! >10 strips.

Others:
Spare Change -updating! ~2000 strips!
Mass Production -hiatus. ~300 strips.

This guy does Piss Mario, Stick, and Filler!
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:48PM
Kohdok at 6:34AM, Aug. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 776
joined: 5-18-2007
warren
Guess what? It was a Democratic President. Fubar is not related to a political party. It is related to political incompetance.

Yup. Exactly. And that's the kind of thing our republican president is demonstrating so excellently right now. Don't forget how congress was doing its part, as well. The 70's were thirty years ago, and it seems the predisposition for political incompetance has swapped parties in recent years, hence why the democrats now have a majority.

BTW, Rove resigned.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:20PM
TnTComic at 8:52AM, Aug. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
warren
Guess what? It was a Democratic President. Fubar is not related to a political party. It is related to political incompetance.

yeah, i s'pose you're right
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
shaneronzio at 10:06AM, Aug. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 497
joined: 12-4-2006
I say the people need to march on Washington to make sure that there are term limits for
ALL U.S. Politicians.

Too many Fat Cats Rapeing the American Public.

We are getting Royal Families right here in the U.S. and it Has to Stop.


oh and before any one says this is off Topic…
It is the ROOT of the whole problem.


Current Project:CROSS WORLDS NEXUS
Updates Monday, Wenzday & FRIDAY
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:32PM
mapaghimagsik at 2:41PM, Aug. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
The general idea is that more and better democrats are needed. I tend to be more of the mind more and better leaders are needed. But, that won't happen until the American public really becomes aware of some things.

1) Money has more of a say in the current administration than the people do.
2) People need to be involved, and have to actually understand the constitution.

Until then, we're just going to treat this like a football game. It doesn't matter what happens to the country as long as my team wins. And so goes the country, so goes your future.

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Vindibudd at 2:46PM, Aug. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
mapaghimagsik
2) People need to be involved, and have to actually understand the constitution.


What do people not understand about the constitution?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
mapaghimagsik at 2:59PM, Aug. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
This has been another edition of “pointless rhetorical questions”
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Vindibudd at 3:49PM, Aug. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
mapaghimagsik
This has been another edition of “pointless rhetorical questions”

I honestly don't believe you are capable of defending what you believe. You don't even try. You simply make unrelated statements that have no bearing on what the person asked you about. You do not know why you believe what you believe, you simply believe it and eviscerate those of differing views for being mindless all the while being the immortalization of mindlessness. I don't understand why you do a political comic if you can't handle philosophy and political theory.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
mapaghimagsik at 3:54PM, Aug. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Vindibudd
mapaghimagsik
This has been another edition of “pointless rhetorical questions”

I honestly don't believe you are capable of defending what you believe. You don't even try. You simply make unrelated statements that have no bearing on what the person asked you about. You do not know why you believe what you believe, you simply believe it and eviscerate those of differing views for being mindless all the while being the immortalization of mindlessness. I don't understand why you do a political comic if you can't handle philosophy and political theory.

There's a difference between having a discussion and wanting to *be* the discussion. See, you want to “lead” the discussion, while those of us who have already examined said issues have already been there.

But hey, thanks for the insults. It shows a *lot* about your style.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Kohdok at 4:07PM, Aug. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 776
joined: 5-18-2007
Yeah, we need to stop feeding the troll.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:20PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved