Share your thoughts...or, in the case of moonbats, your unintelligble grunts!
This clown was targeting someone specifically for their beliefs, ie, who or what they are, right? So where is the "hate crime" warrant too?
I wonder if he'd do the same thing if Bush threatened to veto a "gun control" bill? I'm guessing yes!
A liberal with guns? And with a violent behavior? Can't be..can it?
"Kramer"...perfect name. (Seinfeld)
I have to disagree with your premise.
Where anywhere does it say this guy was "peace-nut" or even a democrat? He did nothing that would indicate to me that he would be either.
In fact Mr. Moyle stated that "He opens the trunk and pulls out a book Theodore Roosevelt, Letters and Speeches. He hands it to me and says, “Here, I want you to read about a real Republican.”"
I would say that if anything this might suggest that the man was a Republican who had fallen that he had lost control of his own party. However I also admit this is circumstantial at best.
Suffice it to say while it's obvious the man is unstable and obviously pissed off about the actions of the current republican party, not surprising if his statement about his brothers is true, we simply don't know enough to say he was acting on behalf of any other party.
Where anywhere does it say this guy was "peace-nut" or even a democrat?
Vince, I never said he was a Democrat. I assume he is a peace nut because that's their m.o. If you've been around this blog long enough, you'd know that there have been scores of documented cases where "peace" activists have violently attacked dissenters, committed acts of vandalism, screamed at and threatened soldiers and their supporters, etc.
Vince, the "peace" crowd is damned violent. They call themselves "peace" protestors because they don't want to be honest about who they really are: anti-soldier protestors.
I would say that if anything this might suggest that the man was a Republican who had fallen that he had lost control of his own party.
You got that from him wanting to shoot Republican workers, trotting out the leftard "war for oil" talking points, asking the poor guy staring down the barrel of his gun "Don't you know that America hates you?" (NOT us - Ed.) and "If your (not "our" - Ed.) President vetoes this bill, I will be back.", etc.? I didn't get that impression.
We've got quite a few disenchanted Republicans here on this blog, so I think I know what they look/sound like. We obviously agree on one point, though: the perp in question is a nutbar.
Not all peace activists are violent.
And just because we want the war to end doesn't make us anti-solder.
It's like this spending bill. Bush asked the congress, elected by the people, for money to continue the war in Iraq. We send him money with some stipulations on how it was to be used. Because Bush doesn't like the stipulations he's pulling the "Democrats don't support our troops" charge out again. However no one is holding a gun to his head telling him to veto that bill. If anything the mans actions seem to stem from a belief that he wants to make sure the troops have the money and equipment they need.
Not that I'm saying what he did was right. We do both agree he's nutbar.
C'mon Vince? " We send him money with some stipulations on how it was to be used."
"SOME STIPULATIONS"!!! Such as a retreat timetable? You can do better than that!
Not all peace activists are violent.
Of course not, and I would not be so presumptuous as to hazard an estimate as to which percentage are violent. However, like I said, I've got lots of evidence of acts of violence commited by purported "peace" activists, so it's not exactly isolated.
And just because we want the war to end doesn't make us anti-solder.
I would agree with that as well.
It's like this spending bill. Bush asked the congress, elected by the people, for money to continue the war in Iraq.
You do understand that Bush, too, was elected by the people, right? As commander-in-chief, no less.
We send him money with some stipulations on how it was to be used.
With all due respect, Vince, that's one of the better jobs of "turd polishing" I've seen in quite some time.
Some "stipulations"? Sure, if he can just get over that whole surrender deadline and loads of pork that have nothing to do with the war. I know his party was lame as hell when it came to pork projects, but I don't know if they ever attached them to bills that were of the "sign this or the troops get no money" variety. And if they did, then they were wrong, just as the Dems are wrong. I am for certain that the Republicans never passed a bill with a surrender deadline to Al Qaeda, though.
Because Bush doesn't like the stipulations he's pulling the "Democrats don't support our troops" charge out again.
The troops have been speaking loud and clear. They agree with Bush on this one, and they think the Dems are playing politics with the war and their mission. They're over there and having to read "the war is lost" and stuff coming from your leaders. But what do they know, right?
However no one is holding a gun to his head telling him to veto that bill.
No, but since he doesn't want to show Al Qaeda that we're ready to leave on a certain date (and thus display a weakness that would embolden them like it always does), he isn't going to sign it. He should be commended for that.
Vince, the Dems have a decades-old history of being anti-military, and their recent actions have done nothing to change that perception among the military faithful. In fact, their recent actions have reinforced that perception. That's why the soldiers tend to vote 70%-30% against Dems in elections (including 2004, when a "decorated war veteran" ran for the Dems).
So yes, you can be anti-war without being anti-soldier. However, frequently the two are inseparable traits of the left.
This will be my last comment on this topic (as we're getting off the original point)
First of all, The Executive Branch exists to execute the laws and will of the American people. The laws and will of the American people are sent to the president by their elected representatives in congress whomever that is. It doesn't work the other way around. I'd bitch just as loud if it was a Dem president trying this crap with a Republican congress.
I will grant you that Bush was elected president, at least once anyway. But that in no way gives him the ability to run roughshod over congress the way he has been doing. Do you honestly think if he could run again he would be elected a third (or second) time? Most Republicans I talk too think he's got his head up his rear.
As for the pork in the bill. Your absolutely right. However look at any bill ever passed through congress and you'll see the same thing done. Republicans do it and Democrats do it. Its business as usual and not anything new. Personally I would be happy if we made it illegal to attach amendments to bills that have nothing to do with what the bill is about in the first place because that kind of crap happens way too often.
As for retreating. It was my understanding that we were setting benchmarks for the Iraqi Government to stand up and take charge by a certain time so that we could pull back to an advisory capacity. We can't sit there for the next 10 years and babysit these people. We simply can't afford it. If the Iraqi Government can't even stand on its own then we have already failed.
As for the troops speaking loud and clear. I've personally known 3 marines and 4 Army Solders who have been deployed to Iraq. Every one of them coming back has told me that we have no business being there and we're not doing anything effective. The three marines have since left, and only one of the solders still remains in the service. I'll take their word over any statistic I see any day.
As for Al Qaeda. The only reason they are there in the first place is because we are there. There was no appreciable Al Qaeda movement in Iraq before we invaded. If you have an idea on how to keep the place from degenerating into full scale civil war and turning into another Iran I'm willing to hear it, but "staying the course" is only going to lead us deeper into the mess were in now.
Its basic common sense. When you see your in a hole the first thing you do is STOP DIGGING.
First of all, The Executive Branch exists to execute the laws...
Correct.
...and will of the American people.
Incorrect. The president doesn't have to listen to the American people, if he chooses not to do so. Sure, he runs the risk of getting booted out of office during re-election bids, and getting impeached and removed from office if Congress decides his actons warrant so. But he is elected to be the CEO of America's laws. Whether Bush has done so faithfully or not is a completely different topic.
The laws and will of the American people are sent to the president by their elected representatives in congress whomever that is.
Wrong again. The laws are not sent to the president. Bills are sent to the president. If he doesn't sign them, they don't become laws. And again, the president doesn't have to play nicely with Congress. Sure, it helps. But just as Bubba and the GOP Congress clashed frequently, so to will the reverse occur.
I'd bitch just as loud if it was a Dem president trying this crap with a Republican congress.
Really? When Bubba vetoed the GOP Congress' tax cuts and welfare reform laws (before ultimately signing one during his re-election year when he became aware it was to his advantage to do so), were you "bitching loudly"? When he fought like hell to keep Congress from getting documents they subpoenaed, were you "bitching loudly" about the will of the American people being thwarted? I don't know you very well, Vince, but if I were forced to wage a guess, I would say you were not offended in the slightest when your guy was ignoring Congress and, to borrow your viewpoint, the "will of the people".
I will grant you that Bush was elected president, at least once anyway.
At this point, I'm beginning to get the urge to ignore you henceforth. You've conducted yourself very well in dissent, and I commend you for that. But if you are of the moonbattery-laced stolen election conspiracy ilk, then I say categorically that you're not welcome in the conversation with the grown-ups here. I urge you to reconsider that pitiful (and categorically debunked) view.
Do you honestly think if he could run again he would be elected a third (or second) time?
Nope. But that has what to do with the topic at hand? Is he supposed to go "Well, I was re-elected in 2004, but now that the American people seemed to have turned against me, I need to moderate my views or..." Or what?
Most Republicans I talk too think he's got his head up his rear.
No arguments here. I've slammed the guy on a number of occasions, and I think that I addressed that in my recent "Bush fatigue" post. But again, that's not even the point.
Personally I would be happy if we made it illegal to attach amendments to bills that have nothing to do with what the bill is about in the first place because that kind of crap happens way too often.
Agreed. I'd like to see it, too.
As for retreating. It was my understanding that we were setting benchmarks for the Iraqi Government to stand up and take charge by a certain time so that we could pull back to an advisory capacity.
Your understanding is incorrect. Benchmarks are the same as deadlines, at least in the eyes of the enemy. Look, I don't know of anyone who supports the war who would be opposed to measurable goals. However, if you think that's what the Dems are doing, I've got some swampland in Palatka I'd like you to see.
As for the troops speaking loud and clear. I've personally known 3 marines and 4 Army Solders who have been deployed to Iraq. Every one of them coming back has told me that we have no business being there and we're not doing anything effective. The three marines have since left, and only one of the solders still remains in the service. I'll take their word over any statistic I see any day.
You're right. Seven people clearly debunk the 70%-30% soldier voting record.
I could show you scores (i.e. more than seven) of letters and blog posts and comments of soldiers who are or have been over there who hate what the Dems are doing, such as Leaky Leahy fighting to get the Gitmo terrorists (who have fought and killed American soldiers like the ones you say hate Bush) freed. However, it seems to me that you're gonna stick with your seven yes-men, so why waste my time?
As for Al Qaeda. The only reason they are there in the first place is because we are there.
If you truly believe this, then you are completely hopeless. In light of the idiotic remark about Bush being elected only once, I'm really beginning to question your acumen. Zarqawi was there (which, by definition, immediately debunks the "there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq" meme), received medical attention there, Al Qaeda trained at Salman Pak (a dry run) for their 9/11 attack, and since Zarqawi was leader of Al Qaeda in...damn, I forget the country...oh, right...in Iraq, it logically follows that he got his soldiers there to fight the infidels. Sucks for you that we killed him, I guess.
"staying the course" is only going to lead us deeper into the mess were in now.
We're not staying the course (nor should we have stayed the course). We're doing a surge, which the Dems say they supported until it actually happened...at which point they predictably (and despicably) opposed it. I'd give you quotes of prominent Dems who all wanted more troops (before they didn't...damn, that Kerry disease is contagious), but again, I suspect I'd be wasting my time.
Jon that was a complete tutorial in how to refute a reality challenged liberal. But I'm afraid FACTS are ignored (or altered)by members of the left.
Commenting by HaloScan
