Full Version: Zarqawi is taking a dirt nap!!!
Well lets get both sides of this. Does this help Iraq start to get settled or are there 50 more waiting to take his place?
There are more muslim terrorists waiting to take his place for sure, but I'm glad he's dead, regardless.
More waiting, but ......
BRING 'EM ON!!!!!
BRING 'EM ON!!!!!
Don't forget!
It was the removal of a despot from power.
it will never be over, maybe not as bad, but it will never be over.
We need to get more of them. So they can all get there mail by groung hog.
QUOTE (tagout @ Jun 8 2006, 03:44 PM) 
it will never be over, maybe not as bad, but it will never be over.
What are you doing, cheering for the terrorists?
no im not, but they been around for a long time, they will be here a lot longer to, training aids for the americans.
QUOTE
"This is just to cover Bush's [rear]so he doesn't have to answer" for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. "Iraq is still a mess -- get out."
So there you have it, it was done so Bush won't have to answer for the Iraqi civilians.
I wonder if Pete is just stupid or does he really believe that crap.
I'm glad you put who said that I thought I was reading a comment from our own beloved IDIOT. Instead it was an idiot from California. 
Of course all of the Dimowits are gonna downplay this major victory - vehemently! It's an election year, and they know the only reason Bush is in the White House and the Republicans control congress is because of his actions in the Global War on Terror. A HUGE, MAJOR VICTORY like this in the GWoT is just about the only thing that can keep the Republicans from losing control of Congress, and the Dims know it very well!
So now all of the professional Bush-haters are making fools of themselves falling all over each other in the rush to denounce this as insignificant, in spite of the fact that everyone else around the world knows it's a major victory and a huge morale-booster for everyone who truly cares at all about the Global War on Terror. Bush has scored a major victory here, and the democrats see their political futures going down the toilet fast if they don't fight it. But how stupid do they really think we all are? IMO they'd do better to pay lip service to it and try to shift our attention elsewhere ASAP.
So now all of the professional Bush-haters are making fools of themselves falling all over each other in the rush to denounce this as insignificant, in spite of the fact that everyone else around the world knows it's a major victory and a huge morale-booster for everyone who truly cares at all about the Global War on Terror. Bush has scored a major victory here, and the democrats see their political futures going down the toilet fast if they don't fight it. But how stupid do they really think we all are? IMO they'd do better to pay lip service to it and try to shift our attention elsewhere ASAP.
Zarqawi's death is a major victory, I'll admit that. It's a great feat for the war on terror. But I doubt it's enough to dig Bush out of the hole he's made for himself.
Hell for some of my friends across the aisle, President Bush could come out and say he invented the internet, no wait Al Gore did that. He could say he has personally cured AIDS and my friends would still have something to complain about.
QUOTE (cfulmor @ Jun 9 2006, 11:58 AM)
Hell for some of my friends across the aisle, President Bush could come out and say he invented the internet, no wait Al Gore did that. He could say he has personally cured AIDS and my friends would still have something to complain about.
So Bush does one thing right in the 6 years he's been in office and we're supposed to forget about all of the major things he has completely screwed up? Sorry, but I'm not bought that easily, and it's sad that you are.
QUOTE (cfulmor @ Jun 9 2006, 11:58 AM)
President Bush could come out and say he invented the internet, no wait Al Gore did that.
By the way, Gore never claimed he invented the internet. You can check it out on Snopes for yourself. You are another victim of the political slander machine. You really should learn not to believe everything you hear.
PHISH while we may disagree on the reasons, at least I'll bet there's one thing we agree on: I'll bet we're both glad Bush can't run for re-election in 2008. I sure am. The guy has definitely not proven to be the kind of man I had thought I was voting for.
Agreed! 
Now excuse me while I go check to see if there are pigs flying outside my window.
Now excuse me while I go check to see if there are pigs flying outside my window.
QUOTE (BMIC @ Jun 9 2006, 02:39 PM)
PHISH while we may disagree on the reasons, at least I'll bet there's one thing we agree on: I'll bet we're both glad Bush can't run for re-election in 2008. I sure am. The guy has definitely not proven to be the kind of man I had thought I was voting for.
Well B, some of us more moderate Republicans are glad he has not bowed to EVERY whim of the religious zelots within our party.
QUOTE (cfulmor @ Jun 9 2006 @ 02:53 PM)
*
Well B, some of us more moderate Republicans are glad he has not bowed to EVERY whim of the religious zelots within our party.
Well B, some of us more moderate Republicans are glad he has not bowed to EVERY whim of the religious zelots within our party.
I'm sure you lukewarm types feel that way, but without the help of us "religious zealots", your party will never get anywhere. Just sit back and watch what happens this November. Unless some miracle happens, they're about to lose power in Congress because they, led by Bush, have very obviously betrayed the religious right. The only votes they'll get from us will be of the "lesser of two evils" variety - and we don't all give those very willingly. All the dems have to do is tone down their support for immoral causes - which admittedly isn't very likely - and many of us will switch sides.
Heck, just watch and see what happens in the MD State Governor's election. I predict Ehrlich is gonna lose by a pretty big margin, because he has shown he's just a RINO when it comes to the moral issues that most Republicans care about. Those of us who voted for him only because we were desperate to defeat the Democrats aren't as desperate anymore.
Bush's successor will fail miserably if he or she doesn't somehow manage to convince us, in spite of Bush's record of deliberate lies, that he or she will truly and steadfastly support our moral agenda. In other words, as much as I may not wish it, unless there's some real major change in the Republican party in the next two years, the Democrats are almost certain to win in 2008. The only way they'll fail is if they can't come up with a suitably charismatic candidate, and they're pretty good at producing slick talkers.
Check out Baghdad ER on HBO, is this war worht the price, I am not sure anyone knows the answer. But yeah I am glad when any murder takes a dirt nap.
So an Iraqi man claims he saw our troops remove an injured man with a beard from an ambulance and beat him to death.
Now two U.S. military doctors have been flown in to carry out an autopsy on the body of al-Zarqawi to see how he actually died.
Is this a waste of time or what, who cares he's dead lets move on and find some more of them to kill.
Now two U.S. military doctors have been flown in to carry out an autopsy on the body of al-Zarqawi to see how he actually died.
Is this a waste of time or what, who cares he's dead lets move on and find some more of them to kill.
QUOTE (Idiot @ Jun 11 2006, 10:58 AM)
QUOTE (BMIC @ Jun 10 2006, 10:41 AM)
In other words, as much as I may not wish it, unless there's some real major change in the Republican party in the next two years, the Democrats are almost certain to win in 2008.
You haven't been paying attention lately B.
The Democrats won't take the House or Senate in 2006 or the White House in 2008.
You heard it here first.
Agreed. Because as bad as republicans can be at times, most of the US realizes the Dems are even worse. New Orleans is just one (ongoing) example.
Let's all hope that whoever is elected in any race, regardfless of party, that they are better than who was there before. Maybe one of the few statements here that almost everyone can agree on????
Agreed, President Bush is/was much better than Former President William (Cigar man) Clinton.
I'd vote for Cigar Man over Pretzel Boy any day of the week!
Why am I NOT surprised.
It's nice to see so many Republican supporters, but as much as I may hope you're all right, I fear you're totally deluded.
There was once a day when people voted for the best candidate and not the party they were affiliated with.
Amazing concept, huh?
Anyone that votes for a party and not the candidate is part of the problem and should have their right to vote taken away.
Amazing concept, huh?
Anyone that votes for a party and not the candidate is part of the problem and should have their right to vote taken away.
QUOTE (phluux @ Jun 12 2006, 10:10 AM)
There was once a day when people voted for the best candidate and not the party they were affiliated with.
Amazing concept, huh?
Amazing concept, huh?
I personally feel they should do away with the party system. That way voters would be forced to vote for the best candidate based on their views, not their party. Then people like CFulmor would actually have to take the blinders off.
QUOTE (PHISH @ Jun 12 2006, 11:30 AM)
QUOTE (phluux @ Jun 12 2006, 10:10 AM)
There was once a day when people voted for the best candidate and not the party they were affiliated with.
Amazing concept, huh?
I personally feel they should do away with the party system. That way voters would be forced to vote for the best candidate based on their views, not their party. Then people like CFulmor would actually have to take the blinders off.
Did you vote for any republicans last election? I crossed "party lines" and voted for a dem.
No blinders here, I cross the party line to vote for Babs, for her support of the Military.
QUOTE (cfulmor @ Jun 12 2006, 12:09 PM)
No blinders here, I cross the party line to vote for Babs, for her support of the Military.
Mikulski????
QUOTE (Snoopy @ Jun 12 2006, 12:05 PM)
Did you vote for any republicans last election? I crossed "party lines" and voted for a dem.
No, but that's because I felt the democratic candidates were better suited for the job, and apparently you did too. However, if the republican party presented some suitable candidates, I'd definitely consider voting for them. Off the top of my head, some republican candidates that I'd consider voting for: John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.
QUOTE (phluux @ Jun 12 2006, 10:10 AM)
Anyone that votes for a party and not the candidate is part of the problem and should have their right to vote taken away.
And you're just the man to take away that right. Heil phluux! Sieg Heil! - Friggin' fascist!
I never cross party lines, but I've been known to refuse to vote for a candidate whom I don't support. IMO sometimes "none of the above" is the only reasonable choice.
QUOTE (PHISH @ Jun 12 2006, 12:19 PM)
No, but that's because I felt the democratic candidates were better suited for the job, and apparently you did too. However, if the republican party presented some suitable candidates, I'd definitely consider voting for them. Off the top of my head, some republican candidates that I'd consider voting for: John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.
I really don't know too much about Giuliani as far as politics go. There's been a buzz about him lately, as well as McCain and even talk of Newt. I think the Republican primaries could be pretty interesting while the Democrats put on another snorefest. The only person I believe that the Democrats would have a chance with is Gore. Hilary is all hype; that will never happen.
If a moderate republican like McCain ran, he'd run away with it IMO.
mccain? isent he the guy pushing for amnisty for the mexicans? i try to vote for the best guy, or girl to do the job, but how do we get them to vote on bills that will help us, they dont, they vote on who can give them the most money, trips things like that.
QUOTE (Snoopy @ Jun 12 2006, 12:11 PM)
QUOTE (cfulmor @ Jun 12 2006, 12:09 PM)
No blinders here, I cross the party line to vote for Babs, for her support of the Military.
Mikulski????
Yep!!
QUOTE (tagout @ Jun 12 2006, 01:41 PM)
mccain? isent he the guy pushing for amnisty for the mexicans?
He's not pushing for amnesty. This is what his bill proposes (taken from his Website):
QUOTE
Homeland security is our nation’s number one priority, and this legislation includes numerous provisions that together will make our nation more secure. This bill includes provisions to strengthen border security, both on our side of the border and throughout this hemisphere. Through the establishment of a new electronic employment verification system, the bill will create a more secure mechanism to better enforce our nation’s immigration laws within our borders. Additionally, the bill enhances the authority of the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security to conduct random audits to ensure that employers are holding up their end of the bargain. And if they aren’t, they face double fines.
Make no mistake, this is not an amnesty bill. We are not here to reward law-breakers, and any accusations to the contrary are patently untrue. This bill recognizes the problems inherent in the current system and provides a logical and effective means to address these problems. The reality is, there are an estimated million undocumented people living and working in this country. It would be impossible to identify and round up all 10 to 11 million of the current undocumented, and if we did, it would ground our nation’s economy to a halt. These millions of people are working. Aliens will not come forward to simply “report and deport.” We have a national interest in identifying these individuals, incentivizing them to come forward out of the shadows, go through security background checks, pay back taxes, pay penalties for breaking the law, learn to speak English, and regularize their status. Anyone who thinks this goal can be achieved without providing an eventual path to a permanent legal status is not serious about solving this problem.
Make no mistake, this is not an amnesty bill. We are not here to reward law-breakers, and any accusations to the contrary are patently untrue. This bill recognizes the problems inherent in the current system and provides a logical and effective means to address these problems. The reality is, there are an estimated million undocumented people living and working in this country. It would be impossible to identify and round up all 10 to 11 million of the current undocumented, and if we did, it would ground our nation’s economy to a halt. These millions of people are working. Aliens will not come forward to simply “report and deport.” We have a national interest in identifying these individuals, incentivizing them to come forward out of the shadows, go through security background checks, pay back taxes, pay penalties for breaking the law, learn to speak English, and regularize their status. Anyone who thinks this goal can be achieved without providing an eventual path to a permanent legal status is not serious about solving this problem.
Any time they feel COMPELLED to have to say theat it's not really anesty, you can bet it really is and they're just trying to con us all.
In other words, if it really and truly wasn't amnesty, there would be no need to say so.
In other words, if it really and truly wasn't amnesty, there would be no need to say so.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.