Support NeoGAF

[APF]

mamacint: Uh, read my post?

thefit: uh, Commondreams? That's actually worse than Daschle... And you're not making a complete argument here (or at least, you're not posting the quotes where they "back away" from this claim, and your point is questionable since you're saying Snow doesn't, etc)

 

[thefit]

Well to be honest I've never even heard of that site rather I was only doing a google for the story wich I know to exist and thats what I got. Also, yes the quote is from Daschle and pretty one sided I'll give you that but your side of the argument doesn't hold up any better considering you expecting "backing away" quotes. That would mean honesty from and administration that hasn't shown much transparency let alone honesty on such serious matters as the war on Iraq, domestic spying, questions about CIA leaks the list goes on.

 

[APF]

Well to be honest I've never even heard of that site rather I was only doing a google for the story wich I know to exist and thats what I got. Also, yes the quote is from Daschle and pretty one sided I'll give you that but your side of the argument doesn't hold up any better considering you expecting "backing away" quotes. That would mean honesty from and administration that hasn't shown much transparency let alone honesty on such serious matters as the war on Iraq, domestic spying, questions about CIA leaks the list goes on.

Well ok, but if you claim they back away from something, you can't fault me asking for direct evidence...

 

[Learn2read]

mamacint: Uh, read my post?

That's not a valid response. Especially after you've spent the last how many posts beating your chest about 'intellectual honesty'

You've clearly taken that quote out of context (you even threw in an "and i quote") to imply that GWB stated that in his speech some contradicting the Mission Accomplished that many people falsely claim he said, when in fact he was refering to a completely different mission entirely (fighting AQ in other countries). And that fact that it was so intentional, now that is intellectual dishonesty.

As for my 'intellectual dishonesty', well perhaps posting something and running out for groceries while you give my quote the ol' APF-me-do is something I'll remember to do next time. But it was pretty clear from the except that I posted that not that the opening lines from his speech were far from the "mission continues" as you so dishonestly claimed. And where did I say that he actually said "Mission Accomplished" in his speech?

As for the Mission Accomplished just being up to the fall of the Bath gov't, no shit Sherlock. If they had exactly zero planning for post-Saddam Iraq, and dismissed any attempt by others to plan for a post-Saddam Iraq, by default, their "mission" would end with the fall of Saddam. That's what makes his appearance on the carrier so laughable in the first place. I can't believe you could be so clueless.

 

[Learn2read]

Well to be honest I've never even heard of that site rather I was only doing a google for the story wich I know to exist and thats what I got. Also, yes the quote is from Daschle and pretty one sided I'll give you that but your side of the argument doesn't hold up any better considering you expecting "backing away" quotes. That would mean honesty from and administration that hasn't shown much transparency let alone honesty on such serious matters as the war on Iraq, domestic spying, questions about CIA leaks the list goes on.

It was from Bob Woodward:

KING: We're back with Bob Woodward. The book "State of Denial." Tell us about Rumsfeld talking about Mission Accomplished banner on the ship.

WOODWARD: This is May 1st, 2003, the very famous speech the president gave on the aircraft carrier, the Kennedy. You know there was that sign, Mission Accomplished. And I asked Rumsfeld about it and said he was -- Rumsfeld was in Baghdad and they sent him an advanced copy of the speech. And he said, I almost died because mission accomplished was in the speech. And he said, I got it out of the speech but I didn't get the sign down. Now they've always put out the story that it was the Navy that put up the sign. And there's the secretary of defense saying it was in the speech.

 

[APF]

That's not a valid response.

"payback's a bitch" then quoting a post that shows you quoting something out of context isn't a valid response? Here?

The point of me saying that was simply to show an interesting parity, nothing more. siamesedreamer's post shows the idea that the Administration felt they were transitioning from removing Saddam's government to stabilizing the country, a mission that we are still in to this day, and I don't think anyone could coherently suggest otherwise: "And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."

[on edit: thanks for the source]

 

[skrew]

Dems pass bill to help the less fortunate, GOP outrage... News at 11.

 

[Diablos]

APF's shtick is tired.

That's an understatement.

Listen Republican fans, let me know when this congress matches the antics of Tom DeLay and co. Until then, stop acting like the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans ended up being during their 12 year reign over the House.

 

[APF]

Dems pass bill to help the less fortunate, GOP outrage... News at 11.

"while cutting President Bush’s funding requests for foreign aid"

Does anyone know who that aid was to go to? I'm not sure the link discusses it.

 

[thefit]

It was from Bob Woodward:

Nah I read this way before State of Denial and here it is and true to their nature they can never really be honest.

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/dickerson/article/0,9565,536170,00.html

Asked at a news conference whether the "Mission Accomplished" banner had been prematurely boastful, the president backed away from it, saying it had been put up by the sailors and airmen of the Lincoln to celebrate their homecoming after toppling Saddam's regime.

Not long afterwards, the White House had to amend its account. The soldiers hadn't put up the sign; the White House had done the hoisting. It had also produced the banner — contrary to what senior White House officials had said for months. In the end, the White House conceded on those details, but declared them mere quibbles. The point was, they said, that the whole thing had been done at the request of the crewmembers. Even that explanation didn't sit well with some long-time Bush aides. "They (the White House) put up banners at every event that look just like that and we're supposed to believe that at this one it was the Navy that requested one?"

 

[Learn2read]

"payback's a bitch" then quoting a post that shows you quoting something out of context isn't a valid response? Here?

The point of me saying that was simply to show an interesting parity, nothing more. siamesedreamer's post shows the idea that the Administration felt they were transitioning from removing Saddam's government to stabilizing the country, a mission that we are still in to this day, and I don't think anyone could coherently suggest otherwise: "And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."

[on edit: thanks for the source]

Well, two things:

1. Sure it was dripping with sarcasm, but you tried to imply that 'mission continues' which he DID say contradicts 'mission accomplished' which he DIDN'T, when in fact it applies to something else entirely. (and your were very specific in mentioning that it was a direct quote, was it 'intellectual dishonesty' or just a mistake on your part? if it's the latter, that's fine). My post was to show that the speech was a declaration of victory "we have prevailed", and is in the same tone as that banner. I never for a second claimed those words came out of his mouth, hope you enjoyed your victory dance though

2. People don't crack open the champagne at half-time. Sure, you can dig up a few obligatory quotes that now we being securing and rebuilding the country, but there have been ~10x as many deaths since then (I can't find the exact number but it's on that order. The idea that 'aha he was only talking about up to the fall of Saddam - gotcha', well again..

As for the Mission Accomplished just being up to the fall of the Bath gov't, no shit Sherlock. If they had exactly zero planning for post-Saddam Iraq, and dismissed any attempt by others to plan for a post-Saddam Iraq, by default, their "mission" would end with the fall of Saddam. That's what makes his appearance on the carrier so laughable in the first place. I can't believe you could be so clueless.

 

[APF]

mamacint: as I said, the point of posting that was to show the parity, that the ironic thing was, he said "our mission continues" in that speech, but didn't say, "mission accomplished." Point taken, they were re: two different things, ok. But you don't deny the meaning of his speech in the first place suggests exactly this meaning ("no shit Sherlock"), so it's an irrelevant point, is it not?

thefit: that quote still leaves a lot more room for interpretation re: what was going on than Woodward's.

 

[Mandark]

Wait, is this the budget for FY07? Cause if it is, they're way behind schedule.

 

[thefit]

thefit: that quote still leaves a lot more room for interpretation re: what was going on than Woodward's.

Look, its from Time so I did away with your reputable source argument and its directly from Bush admin aids but know your just grasping for straws because in their backing away from the lie they didn't outright admit to lying? Thats the point we both agreed on they continue to lie and if you add all their past debacles and their semi truths and word smithing past they don't have chance to win this argument. Your wrong.

 

[APF]

Look, its from Time so I did away with your reputable source argument and its directly from Bush admin aids but know your just grasping for straws because in their backing away from the lie they didn't outright admit to lying? Thats the point we both agreed on they continue to lie and if you add all their past debacles and their semi truths and word smithing past they don't have chance to win this argument. Your wrong.

No, you don't understand what I'm saying, and you're not being fair:

Asked at a news conference whether the "Mission Accomplished" banner had been prematurely boastful, the president backed away from it, saying it had been put up by the sailors and airmen of the Lincoln to celebrate their homecoming after toppling Saddam's regime.

The "backed away from it" refers to, backing away from the banner's statement, "Mission Accomplished;" the backing away was to say it was put up at the impulse of the ship.

Not long afterwards, the White House had to amend its account. The soldiers hadn't put up the sign; the White House had done the hoisting. It had also produced the banner — contrary to what senior White House officials had said for months.

Here, they are backing away from the claim that the soldiers were the ones who put the banner up, but not the idea that the soldiers were the ones who wanted to say their mission was accomplished.

In the end, the White House conceded on those details, but declared them mere quibbles. The point was, they said, that the whole thing had been done at the request of the crewmembers.

Here, they reiterate the Administration's claim. The Administration says, ultimately their position hasn't changed, even though they did this for the soldiers--in other words, the Administration is still suggesting it wasn't Bush's idea to say, "Mission Accomplished" in terms of the Administration's Iraq policy (this though is contradicted by the Woodward quote, as I said before)

Even that explanation didn't sit well with some long-time Bush aides. "They (the White House) put up banners at every event that look just like that and we're supposed to believe that at this one it was the Navy that requested one?"

This is simply anonymous opinion/conjecture, and not a statement of fact.

 

[adamsappel]

adamsappel: that's interesting, link?

None, although this is from wikipedia:

When he received an advance copy of the speech, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld took care to remove any use of the phrase "Mission Accomplished" in the speech itself. Later, when journalist Bob Woodward asked him about his changes to the speech, Rumsfeld responded:"I was in Baghdad, and I was given a draft of that thing to look at. And I just died, and I said my God, it's too conclusive. And I fixed it and sent it back… they fixed the speech, but not the sign."

I originally read about this in The Washington Post or Time magazine. Either way, I think the source is Bob Woodward's book.

 

[APF]

Yeah, that's what it looks like from mamacint's CNN transcript. I have the book, I'll try to get what Woodward says there.

 

[Mandark]

Okay, it is for FY07.

This budget was meant to be done months ago, and the government has been getting by under a temporary funding measure that expires on February 15th.

That means they have about two weeks to get the thing passed and signed, and going through the full committee process wouldn't allow for that; from committee reporting to signing, the budget generally takes the majority of a year.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the budget has a number of compromises designed to get it passed before the deadline, both with Congressional Republicans and with departments in the executive branch.

In separate interviews, both Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran and White House Budget Director Rob Portman said they were pleased with the level of interaction they have had with the new Democratic leadership.

I do think it's slightly disingenuous for someone who was a Republican Representative in the 109th Congress to complain about the process and timeline, since they had the opportunity (and probably the responsibility) to complete this last year.

 

[thefit]

No, you don't understand what I'm saying, and you're not being fair:


The "backed away from it" refers to, backing away from the banner's statement, "Mission Accomplished;" the backing away was to say it was put up at the impulse of the ship.


Here, they are backing away from the claim that the soldiers were the ones who put the banner up, but not the idea that the soldiers were the ones who wanted to say their mission was accomplished.


Here, they reiterate the Administration's claim. The Administration says, ultimately their position hasn't changed, even though they did this for the soldiers--in other words, the Administration is still suggesting it wasn't Bush's idea to say, "Mission Accomplished" in terms of the Administration's Iraq policy (this though is contradicted by the Woodward quote, as I said before)


This is simply anonymous opinion/conjecture, and not a statement of fact.

My god APF your just as good at twisting facts as the administration:lol Your taking paragraphs apart and twisting them to an interpretation that will agree with you not unlike reading the bible and then running a sermon on what you think Jesus meant on whatever. Your still wrong because these quotes are from an article specifically written to refute the administrations actions on the "Mission Accomplished" debacle when it decide that it would blame it on the navy. Your arguments all fall flat here.

 

[APF]

My god APF your just as good at twisting facts as the administration:lol Your taking paragraphs apart and twisting them to an interpretation that will agree with you not unlike reading the bible and then running a sermon on what you think Jesus meant on whatever. Your still wrong because these quotes are from an article specifically written to refute the administrations actions on the "Mission Accomplished" debacle when it decide that it would blame it on the navy. Your arguments all fall flat here.

I think I've been fair, but others in this thread have made the same accusation. Please show me where I'm wrong.

 

[antipode]

Wait, is this the budget for FY07? Cause if it is, they're way behind schedule.

Yes, it is. Actually the AP article in the original post is horribly written and seems to have no grasp of the subject matter. It fails to mention that the federal government is running on temporary spending that expires on Feb. 15 because Republicans failed to pass spending bills in the last session. This temporary bill is designed to keep the government running in 2007 - something the Republicans could have done months ago. It also fails to mention that much of the changes in the bill were requested by the President in his State of the Union speech, when he asked for "no more earmarks" by Congress.

The "foreign aid" cut by the bill is Bush's Millenium Challenge Corporation: http://www.mcc.gov/about/index.php. It's probably good that it's cut because I really don't understand what the MCC is trying to do (help bad governments fight corruption? or become democracies? by giving money to those governments?)

The foreign aid that was increased in this bill, like fighting malaria, is commonsense and accountable. In other words, fiscally responsible.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

jesus APF give it up already. good lord....

 

[APF]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_Corporation



[edit for above: ]

 

[thefit]

I think I've been fair, but others in this thread have made the same accusation. Please show me where I'm wrong.

Your trying to dissect pieces of an article which in whole was written factually and specifically about the debacle that started when the White house decided to blame the navy over an embarrassing stunt. The article has been backed up by the administration itself by it, since 2003, backing away from the story because of its embarrassing nature. What brought us here was me claiming that Tony Snow repeated the lie not too long ago now though the administration admitted that it wasn't the navy they never admitted to lying but given their record you would be hard pressed to believe otherwise. Now this isn't an op-ed or an editorial and I would have given you more credit if you argued the writers motives or the like but you are specifically dissecting the administrations quotes and bringing them to your side of the argument which at this point is really looking apologetic and frankly desperate.

 

[siamesedreamer]

2. People don't crack open the champagne at half-time. Sure, you can dig up a few obligatory quotes that now we being securing and rebuilding the country, but there have been ~10x as many deaths since then (I can't find the exact number but it's on that order. The idea that 'aha he was only talking about up to the fall of Saddam - gotcha', well again..

No one said otherwise.

The occupation has been a cluster**** of monstrous proportions. However, the invasion was a masterpiece of modern tactical warfare and probably will be used as the blueprint for many future invasions.

 

[Phoenix]

The "foreign aid" cut by the bill is Bush's Millenium Challenge Corporation: http://www.mcc.gov/about/index.php. It's probably good that it's cut because I really don't understand what the MCC is trying to do (help bad governments fight corruption? or become democracies? by giving money to those governments?)

I agree, cut that shit. Fully fund the redevelopment of the gulf coast and then revisit after that work is fully funded.

 

[Mandark]

No one said otherwise.

The occupation has been a cluster**** of monstrous proportions. However, the invasion was a masterpiece of modern tactical warfare and probably will be used as the blueprint for many future invasions.

I certainly hope not.

 

[Phoenix]

No one said otherwise.

The occupation has been a cluster**** of monstrous proportions. However, the invasion was a masterpiece of modern tactical warfare and probably will be used as the blueprint for many future invasions.

Yes no kinda. This invasion, just like the original Gulf War, happened too quickly for the situation on the ground to work itself out properly. We destroyed a lot of things we didn't really need to because we didn't have the capability to bring them back online fast enough. Because of our speed, we left weapon stores unguarded and gave ample time for the republican guard to raid and consolidate weapon caches. We also proceeded with the expectation that we would have more support from the civillian regime and we didn't fund/supply them to the right level which caused them to underparticipate in combat operations during the invasion.

There are a bunch of other things as well. It was certainly well orchestrated, but calling it a blueprint would be a bit much.

 

[thefit]

No one said otherwise.

The occupation has been a cluster**** of monstrous proportions. However, the invasion was a masterpiece of modern tactical warfare and probably will be used as the blueprint for many future invasions.

That doesn't make any sense. The invasion was being planned (if you want to call it that) by Rumsfeld with no real objective against an Iraqi military that folded over immediately because they had been severely crippled since the first war due to sanctions and the destruction of their WMD by weapons inspectors. When they took Baghdad the commanders didn't know what to do next as they didn't have a plan post invasion. I would certainly hope we don't use this model against anyone else.

 

[siamesedreamer]

When they took Baghdad the commanders didn't know what to do next as they didn't have a plan post invasion.

And that's called occupation.

Phoenix, I agree to a certain extent.

 

[thefit]

And that's called occupation.

Phoenix, I agree to a certain extent.

You should be running this war.

 

[Mercury Fred]

However, the invasion was a masterpiece of modern tactical warfare and probably will be used as the blueprint for many future invasions.

Can I hand you a tissue to wipe up that jizz?

 

[thefit]

This money story is getting more interesting. Looks like its all coinciding with the release of an audit tomorrow that isn't looking too good for the administration. Looks like you got sum splanin to do lucy.

This while some of our own citizens still don't have their city and permanent holmes rebuilt.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16895294/

Millions wasted in Iraq reconstruction aid
Quarterly audit paints grim picture of fraud, frustration

WASHINGTON - The U.S. government wasted tens of millions of dollars in Iraq reconstruction aid, including scores of unaccounted-for weapons and a never-used camp for housing police trainers with an Olympic-size swimming pool, investigators say.

The quarterly audit by Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, is the latest to paint a grim picture of waste, fraud and frustration in an Iraq war and reconstruction effort that has cost taxpayers more than $300 billion and left the region near civil war.

“The security situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, hindering progress in all reconstruction sectors and threatening the overall reconstruction effort,” according to the 579-page report, which was being released Wednesday.Calling Iraq’s sectarian violence the greatest challenge, Bowen said in a telephone interview that billions in U.S. aid spent on strengthening security has had limited effect. Reconstruction now will fall largely on Iraqis to manage — and they’re nowhere ready for the task.

The audit comes as President Bush is pressing Congress to approve $1.2 billion in new reconstruction aid as part of his broader plan to stabilize Iraq by sending 21,500 more U.S. troops to Baghdad and Anbar province.

20 VIP trailers
According to the report, the State Department paid $43.8 million to contractor DynCorp International for the residential camp for police training personnel outside of Baghdad’s Adnan Palace grounds that has stood empty for months. About $4.2 million of the money was improperly spent on 20 VIP trailers and an Olympic-size pool, all ordered by the Iraqi Ministry of Interior but never authorized by the U.S.

U.S. officials spent another $36.4 million for weapons such as armored vehicles, body armor and communications equipment that can’t be accounted for. DynCorp also may have prematurely billed $18 million in other potentially unjustified costs, the report said.

Responding, the State Department said in the report that it was working to improve controls. Already, it has developed a review process that rejected a $1.1 million DynCorp bill earlier this month on a separate contract because the billed rate was incorrect.

A spokesman for DynCorp, Greg Lagana, did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment.

‘Very expensive process’
Bowen, whose office was nearly eliminated last month by administration-friendly Republicans in Congress, called spending waste in Iraq a continuing problem. Corruption is high among Iraqi officials, while U.S. contract management remains somewhat weak.

With America’s $21 billion rebuilding effort largely finished, it will be up to the international community and the Iraqis to step up its dollars to sustain reconstruction, Bowen said in the interview. “That will be a long-term and very expensive process,” he said

 

[Triumph]

Frankly, the cries of "no bipartisanship" from the right leaning (or just plain asshole contrarians, in the case of APF) posters on this boards is amusing, especially considering this lovely tidbit:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/w...em&ex=1170392400&en=a02bb856ea443f5f&ei=5087

What is this, you may ask? Why, this is Executive Order 13 thousand something something. What does it do? Well, it kind of ties into the global warming thread:

In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities.

This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts. It suggests that the administration still has ways to exert its power after the takeover of Congress by the Democrats.

Fun stuff! So even after laws are passed and new regulations put into place, there will be an Executive Branch bean counter there to assess "the best way" to implement them.

This from El Jefe, who as we can all remember ALSO made a big deal out of playing the "bipartisanship" card after November.

Guys, let's have some Real Talk here. The chances of actual bipartisan cooperation on more than a few issues where Bush is to the left of his party (immigration, mainly) are Slim and None, and Slim just got Cheneyed in the face at a wingless quailtard hunting run. The reasons for this are many and sundry, but it pretty much has to do with the fact that relations between both parties have soured dramatically since, oh I don't know, 1994 or so. In other words, the juvenile, unprofessional actions of the Republican majority over the past 12 years are to blame. In other words, you reap what you sow. Enjoy being on the outside of the legislative process for at least the next two years and hopefully longer. The actions of your elected representatives have earned the GOP this.

 

[APF]

Your trying to dissect pieces of an article which in whole was written factually and specifically about the debacle that started when the White house decided to blame the navy over an embarrassing stunt. The article has been backed up by the administration itself by it, since 2003, backing away from the story because of its embarrassing nature. What brought us here was me claiming that Tony Snow repeated the lie not too long ago now though the administration admitted that it wasn't the navy they never admitted to lying but given their record you would be hard pressed to believe otherwise. Now this isn't an op-ed or an editorial and I would have given you more credit if you argued the writers motives or the like but you are specifically dissecting the administrations quotes and bringing them to your side of the argument which at this point is really looking apologetic and frankly desperate.

I don't think you understood either what the article was saying, or what I was saying when I tried to show you what the article was saying. I'm also not sure why you expect me to "[argue] the writers motives" ? It seems pretty clear that you're not interested in affording me the same level of honesty I've frankly afforded every one of the people who have attacked me in this thread, including yourself.

(or just plain asshole contrarians, in the case of APF)

Well gee, that's not nice. Here I was thinking we'd established some sort of camaraderie, and here you are insulting me for no reason.

 

[thefit]

I don't understand? Your not even trying anymore and its showing. Chalking this up to "everyone is wrong but me" is now just plain delusional.

 

[APF]

I don't understand? Your not even trying anymore and its showing. Chalking this up to "everyone is wrong but me" is now just plain delusional.

Uh, again, read my post. It's all there, you're literally not bothering to try and comprehend what it is I'm saying, and it's slightly amusing. Example: tell me what I mean when I reference Bob Woodward.

 

[siamesedreamer]

The reasons for this are many and sundry, but it pretty much has to do with the fact that relations between both parties have soured dramatically since, oh I don't know, 1994 or so. In other words, the juvenile, unprofessional actions of the Republican majority over the past 12 years are to blame. In other words, you reap what you sow. Enjoy being on the outside of the legislative process for at least the next two years and hopefully longer. The actions of your elected representatives have earned the GOP this.

Fair enough. But, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[ronito]

Fair enough. But, two wrongs don't make a right.

But this isn't about being right. It's about Karma.

 

[APF]

But this isn't about being right. It's about Karma.

Welcome to the ME conflict.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

Surely nobody expected this Congress to be bipartisan, right?

Republicans acted like total dickweeds for the past several years. Read up on how some of them were able to "pass" legislation. Nobody should be surprised here.

The Republicans are the minority now and they will now realize what being a minority party is. Whining and crying like little babies isn't going to solve the problem. In the future, maybe they will be smart and quit sucking the collective special interest cock. Maybe then we will see bipartisanship.

 

[APF]

Surely nobody expected this Congress to be bipartisan, right?

Uh, but Nancy Pelosi said...

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

Uh, but Nancy Pelosi said...

:lol :lol :lol

I know you were being sarcastic but there were some people who believed it was going to be that way.

 

[Phoenix]

Fair enough. But, two wrongs don't make a right.

... but three rights make a left.

 

[whytemyke]

...never thought I'd see the day when Republicans are pissed at DEMOCRATS for cutting foreign spending :lol

 

[siamesedreamer]

I know you were being sarcastic but there were some people who believed it was going to be that way.

Nobody believed it. But, its sure as hell fun getting to call the DEMs liars too.

 

[Triumph]

Well gee, that's not nice. Here I was thinking we'd established some sort of camaraderie, and here you are insulting me for no reason.

Silly goose, that's a compliment! I actually HAVE come to appreciate what you do- without naysayers it's just a bunch of wankers standing around agreeing with each other. Plus you're able to back up your arguments.

Fair enough. But, two wrongs don't make a right.

This is about politics! Wrong and right don't enter into it. Politics is the most vicious bloodsport in America today. If we seriously want to fix the system, it must be blown up and started over from scratch. Hell, I bet the country would be better off if all 435 members of Congress were randomly selected from the populace as opposed to voted in.

 

[Hyoushi]

 

[Zeed]

You mean where I counter lies and arguable histrionics with completely valid points?

:lol

 

[He Wants Chalupas]