Why won't this Congress Stand Up To BushCo?

Discuss the Presidential Election and How It Affects Veterans. Everyone is invited

Moderator: gmg

JohnAllen
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 8:00 pm
Contact:

Why won't this Congress Stand Up To BushCo?

Postby JohnAllen » Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:15 pm

Per an email received from a veteran today......

QUESTION FOR DEBATE: WHY Wouldn't This Congress Stand Up To Bushco?

I have a thought....

We had the sleazy, greezy Pig-Man Karl Rove doing all the thinking on how to run the show....

The very same Pig-Man who now is NOT being arrested for Contempt of Congress incidental.....

and anyone who doesn't know that there is NO limit to how low Rove will go has not kept up on their comic book news readings.

Now, we all know that Bushco is BIG in illegal wiretaps....without reason...without evidence...without warrant.

AND we all know that this crew in Congress is some of the lowest puddles of human dung to ever be collected in one spot.

So, is it feasible that the Pig-Man did some undercover illegal 'investigations' into the private lives and habits of THIS Congress, and used it as blackmail?

Now, before you answer, remember...

NCLB
New Orleans
Iraq
Iran
Wire taps without warrants
Patriot Act
911 "INVESTIGATION"
Nukes flying over the USA without orders "BY MISTAKE"
Secret prisons
"Rendition"
'Gitmo'
Halliburten's MASSIVE profits
Gas prices
The Oil Barons "MASSIVE PROFITS"
Food shortages
No more grain surplus for emergencies
Bush's 'MISSING MILITARY RECORDS"
and of course the 2000 ELECTION which started it all, thank you Jeb.

Shall I go on? so....ideas?
-----------------------------------------------
John P. Allen

bdb4269
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:00 pm
Location: NULL
Contact:

Postby bdb4269 » Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:32 pm

Great point -- I hadn't even thought of that. Very possible, IMO.

gmg
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 8:00 pm

Postby gmg » Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:09 pm

[size=0].[/size]
Speaking for myself, I am very disturbed at reading a second post by you, John, that does not allow our members here to confront the individual who wishes to use extreme negativity in his/her discourse on politics in the United States.

It is my view that folks who need to use derogatory language such as I read up there in trying to get their point across are short of language skills. Or worse.

And to then use a proxy such as is happening here -- well, I shan't go further. It's just not right, that's all. Not right at all.

If a regular member were to post something like that and say he/she was posting for another member or somebody not a member, that post would be deleted. You're supposed to speak for yourself, unless you're quoting a newsmaker. Basic rule of any forum. And we shouldn't be any different.

[size=0].[/size]
Freedom isn't free!

Guest

Postby Guest » Sun Aug 10, 2008 2:16 pm

gmg wrote:[size=0].[/size]
Speaking for myself, I am very disturbed at reading a second post by you, John, that does not allow our members here to confront the individual who wishes to use extreme negativity in his/her discourse on politics in the United States.


Hmmmm. Just a thought there gmg -- whats stopping you from "confronting" the person? Whoever sent the email, is certainly watching this thread, so if you have something you want to say to the "individual who wishes to...." -- go ahead and say it -- they will hear it -- and if they want to reply, they will have to come out of the "shadows"


Another thought the person obviously wanted to remain anonymous. Freedom of speech, including anonymous speech, I feel should be allowed in all forms in this country. By being anonymous, you are not preventing people from telling you why you are wrong.

You can call it cowardly, and a lot of other things -- but morally wrong?!? That's just silly.

So instead of complaining about how you can't reply the the person who wrote it -- if you want to reply so bad, why don't you reply to what was asked, instead of attacking the person (and/he messenger) personally?

They will certainly see this thread, and your response, and you can have that satisfaction.

While that -- and I would really like to see what your thoughts are on this matter -- because I have to say, I agree with most of what anonymous in the US said.

So even if you dont agree with my logic that you can reply to him even if he is anonymous -- then you can reply (confront - as you call it) to me -- because I am not anonymous.

I don't know though -- you never finished "confronting" me on that other thread, even though, you said you would get back to me. ;)

gmg
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 8:00 pm

Postby gmg » Tue Aug 12, 2008 1:00 pm

Anonymous wrote:
gmg wrote:[size=0].[/size]
Speaking for myself, I am very disturbed at reading a second post by you, John, that does not allow our members here to confront the individual who wishes to use extreme negativity in his/her discourse on politics in the United States.


Hmmmm. Just a thought there gmg -- whats stopping you from "confronting" the person? Whoever sent the email, is certainly watching this thread, so if you have something you want to say to the "individual who wishes to...." -- go ahead and say it -- they will hear it -- and if they want to reply, they will have to come out of the "shadows"


Another thought the person obviously wanted to remain anonymous. Freedom of speech, including anonymous speech, I feel should be allowed in all forms in this country. By being anonymous, you are not preventing people from telling you why you are wrong.

You can call it cowardly, and a lot of other things -- but morally wrong?!? That's just silly.

So instead of complaining about how you can't reply the the person who wrote it -- if you want to reply so bad, why don't you reply to what was asked, instead of attacking the person (and/he messenger) personally?

They will certainly see this thread, and your response, and you can have that satisfaction.

While that -- and I would really like to see what your thoughts are on this matter -- because I have to say, I agree with most of what anonymous in the US said.

So even if you dont agree with my logic that you can reply to him even if he is anonymous -- then you can reply (confront - as you call it) to me -- because I am not anonymous.

I don't know though -- you never finished "confronting" me on that other thread, even though, you said you would get back to me. ;)


I think you ought to go back and read my post again, because you seem to have misunderstood your first reading of the post.

To help you out:

1. Where do you read me stating that I wish to confront anyone?

2. Where do you read in this thread where I use the vocabulary "cowardly" or "morally wrong"?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

NOTE TO THE MEMBERS:

I apologize that I didn't check John's settings which allowed a "Guest" to post on this thread.


Return to “Election 2008 and Veterans”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron