Re: Analyse this
 

Anyone else find it a little funny that some here are trying to argue that the Dems should have signed something that (according to these posters) they knew was incorrect out of fear of being called names? What is this, 4th grade? Wouldn't most of you agree that part of the problem with politics is that too many politicians simply want to stay in power instead of representing their constituents?

ROFLMAO
 

Dubya, who is often portrayed as dumber than a post, bamboozling the sophisticated and intellectually oriented Democrats is what you're claiming? Absolutely hilarious.

[ QUOTE ]
Short-term, egotistical considerations (i.e. getting re-elected in the next election) and closed-minded objectives prevailed in the Dems' camp.

[/ QUOTE ]

Implying that the Democrats bare no responsibility. Typical and also very laughable.

Stop rolling bare ass on the floor
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Short-term, egotistical considerations (i.e. getting re-elected in the next election) and closed-minded objectives prevailed in the Dems' camp.

[/ QUOTE ]

Implying that the Democrats bare no responsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary, my implication is quite straightforwardly heaping a ton of blame on the cowardly, politicking, short-sighted Democrats in Congress, who bear as much responsibility as any accessory to murder.

...You sure you didn't get it the first time? I think you enjoy seeing this repeated.

Re: Analyse this
 

The problem with democracy in general is that constituents are incredibly fickle. They want more services and lower taxes. They love wars when things are going great, but they hate the slightest setbacks. Often they don't have much of an idea what they want.

Perhaps it's a Faustian bargain, but I believe politicians are quite capable of claiming that they are better able to serve their constituents by doing whatever they feel as necessary to stay in power. The war resolution was going to pass no matter what they did, and the war was very popular at the time. If candidate A votes against the war and they find WMDs, he's finished if he runs for re-election, so now candidate B, a Republican, gets to come into Congress and vote for things the Democrat would not. It is an unfortunate state of affairs that results from our two-party system, but clinging to naive slogans like 'standing up for what they believe in' is exactly what will get the other party elected.

There should be term limits so that politicians can serve out their terms without this kind of manuevering. But somehow I don't see a group of career politicians voting themselves out of the possibility of a job.

Re: JOINT RESOLUTION ON IRAQ - October 11, 2002
 

[ QUOTE ]
He said in a Iraqi-war vote (I don't know which) she was the only one to vote against. She was a big example and encouragement for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This guy used Maxine Waters as an example to look up to?!?!?!?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

She's probably the biggest buffoon in Congress - look at her record and look up some of her quotes.

This is a woman who excused the 1992 Los Angeles riots as a "rebellion."

This is a woman who called the violence in L.A. "a spontaneous reaction to a lot of injustice and a lot of alienation and frustration."

2 quotes on the looting that went on in the LA riots:

"There were mothers who took this as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes. Maybe they shouldn't have done it, but the atmosphere was such that they did it. They are not crooks."

"One lady said her children didn't have any shoes. She just saw those shoes there, a chance for all of her children to have new shoes. Goddamn it! It was such a tear-jerker. I might have gone in and taken them for her myself."

I'd want my money back.

Re: JOINT RESOLUTION ON IRAQ - October 11, 2002
 

"This is a woman who called the violence in L.A. 'a spontaneous reaction to a lot of injustice and a lot of alienation and frustration.'"

You disagree with this?

Re: Analyse this
 

How is the attitude of "do anything it takes so long as the other guy doesn't win" any better than "I won't stand up for what I believe in because I'll lose my job". This just further illustrates my point that one of the problems with politics today is career politicians who will do/say anything to get reelected. Besides, if your party has enough support from your constituents, you shouldn't have to worry about forever losing them to "the other guys". You could just resign and let another from your party run. But that's probably unthinkable for career pols.

Re: Analyse this
 

I'm noticing more and more the line "if they found WMD i was finished". Are you telling me Dems has the exact same doubts the president did before the war. If so, then they did stand up for what they believed in, they just don't want to admit it now.

Re: JOINT RESOLUTION ON IRAQ - October 11, 2002
 

I've always wondered how breaking into stores and stealing things was politically motivated. It always seemed to me that there are better ways to react to "a lot of alienation and frustration".

If they had marched that would be one thing. Hell even burning the goods in the store would be better. But stealing them for personal gain cheapens the entire movement. They immediately go from revolutionaries to common thieves.

Re: Analyse this
 

okay, so both parties were wrong in signing that resolution, the democrats say so and theyre idiots? i dont get it. isnt that much much better than continuing to make up lies after these lies were discovered?

rj