PDA

View Full Version : Thank you, Speaker Boehner



Soflasnapper
03-26-2011, 05:29 PM
In complete sincerity, let me offer the thanks of a grateful nation to Speaker John Boehner for his insistence that the Obama administration explain and reveal their planning and projections for the new military intervention in Libya.

Among the worst features of an imperial presidency is the overuse of unilateral war-making powers. It is long past time for the Congress to assert its role with skepticism, and not bow cravenly to whatever war the executive branch asserts should be done, and is their unilateral right to do (even though it does appear they have that unilateral right-- still...).

Well done, Mr. Speaker. More of this, please.

pooltchr
03-26-2011, 05:36 PM
Very well stated.

Steve

Qtec
03-27-2011, 02:05 AM
Don't you think it is a little hypocritical that the GOP is now asking about the cost of war?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Among the many questions surrounded America’s new coalition venture into Libya– besides what America’s objective is, how long troops will remain there, and how many troops will go there– is how this will affect America’s national debt. This concern comes as a surprise to Rachel Maddow who, as an avowed liberal, had always been skeptical of defense spending, but hearing her concerns voiced by Speaker John Boehner, she explains, is quite the bizarre experience.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Describing “defense” as a “magic word” the military has used throughout history to avoid questioning as to how much money is diverted towards their efforts, Maddow happily reported that, because the war is being staged by a Democrat that Republicans are so desperately trying to remove in about a year’s time, has lost its power. Quoting Speaker Boehner asking for cost estimates for the intervention, Maddow asked rhetorically, “Cost for something the military is doing? In America? We’re worrying aloud about that?”

This “new way of thinking”– which she also described as the “old liberal way of thinking”– had now pervaded much of the right, </span>and not just Rep. Ron Paul (though him too). The fact that the military spending would potentially wipe out the Republican spending costs was causing concern, enough concern to prompt a “mainstream discussion in Washington about money,” and not just the typical grumbles from “commie pinko liberals on the margins.” While all the other details of the kinetic effort are just as important, Maddow hoped “this will be the war where we count the cost while we wage it. </div></div>


watch it (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rachel-maddow-marvels-at-new-republican-interest-in-libya-defense-spending/)

Q

Gayle in MD
03-27-2011, 09:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In complete sincerity, let me offer the thanks of a grateful nation to Speaker John Boehner for his insistence that the Obama administration explain and reveal their planning and projections for the new military intervention in Libya.

Among the worst features of an imperial presidency is the overuse of unilateral war-making powers. It is long past time for the Congress to assert its role with skepticism, and not bow cravenly to whatever war the executive branch asserts should be done, and is their unilateral right to do (even though it does appear they have that unilateral right-- still...).

Well done, Mr. Speaker. More of this, please. </div></div>

If we hadn't stepped in, and worked with the coalition of nations, to prevent the humanitarian crises, RePiglicans, incluidng Boehner, would be demonizing the President, for not doing something sooner for the humanitarian cause. in fact, that's how they started out, in the first place, nothing but feigned outrage, because he was "Dithering" the republican definition of not going off half cocked.

As it is, they have accused him of "Dithering" when in fact, he has informed the world, of exactly what he is doing, what our part in this effort will be, and where and how he intends to place limits on our involvment.

Given we currently have a Congress, which has stated clearly, their MAIN GOAL, is to destroy this administration, and remove this President, is there anyone in this country who could actually believe that this Congress has any capacity, at all, to do what is best for America, regardless of what the President might have decided? Have we not watch them act as obstructionists for the loat three and a half years, in spite of the additionaly damage to efforts for improoving our plight, recovering from the Bush Recession, addressing our unsustainable health, insurance and energy costs? Jobs programs, and educational investments, obstructing all the way?

Given many of them were demanding action, from the start, and then changed their stripes, immediately after actions were taken, and AFTER we were told by the President, The Secretary Of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint chiefs of Staff, and with UN Approval, and many allies on board, what was going on, and how things would progress, do you really think that Repubicans would have been anything but obstructionists, demonizers, blame throwers, and acted in any manner other than as all they are, ever, political opportunists?

Boehner has a lot of nerve, given the R.'s history during the Bush Administration's multi decision making FUBAR'S, and without giving any factual intelligence, nothing but the same sort of "Facts" which we see the dishonest, or ingorant, right, here on this forum as they seek to justify their irrational points of view, by cherry-picking old outdated, irrelevant, twisted lies, to make their cases, using intelligence already labeled as unreliable, and untrue, just like Bush, lying to the Congress, and the world....

IMO, if this president wanted to prevent a disastrous humanitarian crises, in time, he handled this situation, and the one in Egypt, perfectly.

Get Americans out first.

State our goal and involvement clearly.

Act only after we have support and agreement of the United Nations, the states in the region, and commitments from allies.

What he did was in every way, Constitutional, and correct.
They would have roasted him royally, had he done nothing, and we all know that, and they would have pulled their usual delay, and demonize, tactics, while people were being slaughtered, and then condemned him after the slaughter, for not acting more quickaly.

I say, F. the Repiglican Congress! They are not a Congress, they are fascists, through and through. Racist Theocrats, who threaten our country's most precious tenents.

The constitution and the Founders, gives the President enormous deiscretion to assign military forces to combat zones, because the Commander in Chief, needs to act with dispatch, and five hundred and thirty five members of Congress, Cannot act with dispatch. War Powers Act, every single President since Richard Nixon has treated it as unconstitutional, thhe president has enormous leeway, here...


This is NOT a war. It is a limited involvement, in an international, humanitarian effort. He doesn't need the Obstructionists, for this matter, and more than likely, hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved, because he acted decisively, and withint the limits of his power.

I respect your opinion, but can't agree, that Boehner is doing anything positive, to aid the humanitarian cause. Shame on him, after pushing for the Bush's, illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq, on lies.

We are transfering power to NATO, as we should.

Going after the Libyan Army, is part of the UN resolution. We've had numerous no-floy zones, over the decades....many times.



The congressional Objections are nothing but a side show. They surely don't want to risk any firm opinion, particularly when their "Tea Party" is coming apart! LOL...

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/tea-party-fading-away-2011
G.

pooltchr
03-27-2011, 09:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I say, F. the Repiglican Congress!
G. </div></div>

Very lady-like comment. Your overwhelming hatred of Republicans prevents you from seeing facts. Sofla posted an intelligent comment in a "fair and balanced" way, and you go off on another of your left wing, attack rants.

You are so full of yourself, it would be funny, if it wasn't so sad.

Steve

Soflasnapper
03-27-2011, 12:46 PM
Don't you think it is a little hypocritical that the GOP is now asking about the cost of war?


Short answer, of course-- it is MORE than a little hypocritical, it's WAY hypocritical.

And so what, in the end? It is said that hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. If they now (however hypocritically) have stumbled into a correct position, as TRMS would agree they have (the right position, that is), we should take that as a good thing, and make common cause on this matter.

I frankly tire of the hypocrisy charges back and forth, even though they are quite true, often.

1) Nobody is ever shamed out of a position out of hypocrisy-- it just doesn't have the sting effect I guess those making the charge think it will.

2) It confuses the issue by declarifying positions into a secondary argument. It isn't a good argument that 'they' are wrong to say 'this current thing' is wrong when they formerly said 'this other (similar) thing' was right, unless you agree that 'other thing' WAS RIGHT. (And that's rarely if ever the case when this kind of argument gets raised.)

If they were WRONG in their former position, by our lights, it doesn't make doing a similar thing NOW, RIGHT (although the claim of hypocrisy would stand). But both the left and right who use the hypocrisy argument MISS this point entirely.

It's easier to see that problem on the other side, but it applies to both sides. It's here IN REVERSE, actually. The left would say they were right to question the prior wars, and that the right was wrong to attack that rightful questioning as unpatriotic if not (and perhaps it was, they'd argue) treasonous. Now that the right gets it, and questions THIS war, WHICH THE LEFT SAID WAS THE CORRECT THING TO DO IN THE PAST AND THE RIGHT WAS WRONG TO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT, how can the left complain?

Well, they charge hypocrisy, and it's true, but that doesn't change the fact that the right is now on the correct side.

That is, if their former refusal to question past wars was wrong then, reversing it now is a good thing, and it would be ironic to the point of tragedy if the left picked up THE RIGHT'S FORMER POSITION in opposition.

pooltchr
03-27-2011, 12:59 PM
That makes way too much sense for her to comprehend it.

In her world, the left can do no wrong, and the right is always wrong.

Anything beyond that is too much for her to process.

Steve

Gayle in MD
03-27-2011, 02:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Don't you think it is a little hypocritical that the GOP is now asking about the cost of war?


Short answer, of course-- it is MORE than a little hypocritical, it's WAY hypocritical.

And so what, in the end? It is said that hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. If they now (however hypocritically) have stumbled into a correct position, as TRMS would agree they have (the right position, that is), we should take that as a good thing, and make common cause on this matter.

I frankly tire of the hypocrisy charges back and forth, even though they are quite true, often.

1) Nobody is ever shamed out of a position out of hypocrisy-- it just doesn't have the sting effect I guess those making the charge think it will.

2) It confuses the issue by declarifying positions into a secondary argument. It isn't a good argument that 'they' are wrong to say 'this current thing' is wrong when they formerly said 'this other (similar) thing' was right, unless you agree that 'other thing' WAS RIGHT. (And that's rarely if ever the case when this kind of argument gets raised.)

If they were WRONG in their former position, by our lights, it doesn't make doing a similar thing NOW, RIGHT (although the claim of hypocrisy would stand). But both the left and right who use the hypocrisy argument MISS this point entirely.

It's easier to see that problem on the other side, but it applies to both sides. It's here IN REVERSE, actually. The left would say they were right to question the prior wars, and that the right was wrong to attack that rightful questioning as unpatriotic if not (and perhaps it was, they'd argue) treasonous. Now that the right gets it, and questions THIS war, WHICH THE LEFT SAID WAS THE CORRECT THING TO DO IN THE PAST AND THE RIGHT WAS WRONG TO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT, how can the left complain?

Well, they charge hypocrisy, and it's true, but that doesn't change the fact that the right is now on the correct side.

That is, if their former refusal to question past wars was wrong then, reversing it now is a good thing, and it would be ironic to the point of tragedy if the left picked up THE RIGHT'S FORMER POSITION in opposition. </div></div>

How is this current situation, anything like Iraq, the illegal, hidden, pre-determined, the rush to war, the lies, cherry picking, using fake intel, and dated intel, the illegal invasion, and occupation, and lies that we were winning, for years???

This is totally different, in that there WAS and is an eminent, clear and stated, humanitarian threat, directly from Gadaffi, to his people. No such thing was existed when Bush invaded Iraq. Saddam had used weapons against his people, but that was years before our invasion.

Libya didn't attack us, but neither did Saddam. We have used no fly zones, many times, both sides. I can assure you, had this president failed to meet the requests of Europe, and other allies, in the region, the negative results to America, would have been vast, and the Republicans would have bashed him to the ends of the earth.

We have not committed military boots on the ground. Many people are saying things that are not so.

Boehner, is simply using this situation, to further criticize the president, a man who has done the correct thing, instead of the politically popular, safe stance. Either way, they would have said he was wrong....

G.

Soflasnapper
03-27-2011, 04:15 PM
I agree that this situation in Libya is far different from what was the case in Iraq prior to that misbegotten disaster.

It still remains the case that war is a horribly blunt instrument, and itself always an absolute evil, that can only be justified in extreme cases as an absolute last resort, if failing to use it would result in still worse evil taking place.

Reasonable people may differ where they draw that line. I don't pretend to be some arbiter of morality, except as to my own opinion.

However, the US and its people have been all too casual about wars, as if they were sanitary and precise video games and do not cause horrific results at the time and for long after they end. Any skepticism and attendant reluctance to start wars, or continue them, is welcome and objectively correct in my view, however based in partisanship any particular example of this may be. For we know that wars have their own momentum, always contain nasty unexpected surprises and failures of the projections, and then we get trapped in the thinking that if we withdraw, we'll lose face and international respect.

So far as I know, we may still have troops deployed in peacekeeping roles in Kosovo or those environs, decades after that limited war.

Gayle in MD
03-27-2011, 04:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree that this situation in Libya is far different from what was the case in Iraq prior to that misbegotten disaster.

It still remains the case that war is a horribly blunt instrument, and itself always an absolute evil, that can only be justified in extreme cases as an absolute last resort, if failing to use it would result in still worse evil taking place.

Reasonable people may differ where they draw that line. I don't pretend to be some arbiter of morality, except as to my own opinion.

However, the US and its people have been all too casual about wars, as if they were sanitary and precise video games and do not cause horrific results at the time and for long after they end. Any skepticism and attendant reluctance to start wars, or continue them, is welcome and objectively correct in my view, however based in partisanship any particular example of this may be. For we know that wars have their own momentum, always contain nasty unexpected surprises and failures of the projections, and then we get trapped in the thinking that if we withdraw, we'll lose face and international respect.

So far as I know, we may still have troops deployed in peacekeeping roles in Kosovo or those environs, decades after that limited war. </div></div>

I agree entirely. I, too, am against war, and the unintended consequences, can never be fully anticipated.

However, unless I am misunderstanding, I thought the President had been very clear, all along, that there wouold be no American Boots On The Ground, and his doctrine, so far as I can tell, is to avoid war, and bring other countries into the difficult task of peace keeping around the world.

I think he is entirely correct to send the signal to those who have asked us to help them create a no-fly zone, that they will have to take up the cuase, themselves, after we use what unique resources we have to allow for immediate actions, to prevent all out slaughter, and that we cannot continue to be the main protectors, but instead, that all others must contribute, and in this case, take over that cause....

I still think, though, that Boehner, is not concerned about anything except opportunities to look like the big dog, and chances to bash this president....

But then, I am particularly against Boehner, having watched his incessant displays of self praise, hypocrisy, and incredible heart felt emotional drama, weeping like a school girl, over his thoughts, about himself.

YUK!

G.

cushioncrawler
03-27-2011, 05:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">....It still remains the case that war is a horribly blunt instrument, and itself always an absolute evil, that can only be justified in extreme cases as an absolute last resort, if failing to use it would result in still worse evil taking place. Reasonable people may differ where they draw that line. I don't pretend to be some arbiter of morality, except as to my own opinion....</div></div>Hmmmmmmm.
Would theusofa help if libyans were revolting koz tax rates were too high?????
mac.

Sev
03-27-2011, 07:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In complete sincerity, let me offer the thanks of a grateful nation to Speaker John Boehner for his insistence that the Obama administration explain and reveal their planning and projections for the new military intervention in Libya.

Among the worst features of an imperial presidency is the overuse of unilateral war-making powers. It is long past time for the Congress to assert its role with skepticism, and not bow cravenly to whatever war the executive branch asserts should be done, and is their unilateral right to do (even though it does appear they have that unilateral right-- still...).

Well done, Mr. Speaker. More of this, please. </div></div>

If we hadn't stepped in, and worked with the coalition of nations, to prevent the humanitarian crises, RePiglicans, incluidng Boehner, would be demonizing the President, for not doing something sooner for the humanitarian cause. in fact, that's how they started out, in the first place, nothing but feigned outrage, because he was "Dithering" the republican definition of not going off half cocked.

As it is, they have accused him of "Dithering" when in fact, he has informed the world, of exactly what he is doing, what our part in this effort will be, and where and how he intends to place limits on our involvment.

Given we currently have a Congress, which has stated clearly, their MAIN GOAL, is to destroy this administration, and remove this President, is there anyone in this country who could actually believe that this Congress has any capacity, at all, to do what is best for America, regardless of what the President might have decided? Have we not watch them act as obstructionists for the loat three and a half years, in spite of the additionaly damage to efforts for improoving our plight, recovering from the Bush Recession, addressing our unsustainable health, insurance and energy costs? Jobs programs, and educational investments, obstructing all the way?

Given many of them were demanding action, from the start, and then changed their stripes, immediately after actions were taken, and AFTER we were told by the President, The Secretary Of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint chiefs of Staff, and with UN Approval, and many allies on board, what was going on, and how things would progress, do you really think that Repubicans would have been anything but obstructionists, demonizers, blame throwers, and acted in any manner other than as all they are, ever, political opportunists?

Boehner has a lot of nerve, given the R.'s history during the Bush Administration's multi decision making FUBAR'S, and without giving any factual intelligence, nothing but the same sort of "Facts" which we see the dishonest, or ingorant, right, here on this forum as they seek to justify their irrational points of view, by cherry-picking old outdated, irrelevant, twisted lies, to make their cases, using intelligence already labeled as unreliable, and untrue, just like Bush, lying to the Congress, and the world....

IMO, if this president wanted to prevent a disastrous humanitarian crises, in time, he handled this situation, and the one in Egypt, perfectly.

Get Americans out first.

State our goal and involvement clearly.

Act only after we have support and agreement of the United Nations, the states in the region, and commitments from allies.

What he did was in every way, Constitutional, and correct.
They would have roasted him royally, had he done nothing, and we all know that, and they would have pulled their usual delay, and demonize, tactics, while people were being slaughtered, and then condemned him after the slaughter, for not acting more quickaly.

I say, F. the Repiglican Congress! They are not a Congress, they are fascists, through and through. Racist Theocrats, who threaten our country's most precious tenents.

The constitution and the Founders, gives the President enormous deiscretion to assign military forces to combat zones, because the Commander in Chief, needs to act with dispatch, and five hundred and thirty five members of Congress, Cannot act with dispatch. War Powers Act, every single President since Richard Nixon has treated it as unconstitutional, thhe president has enormous leeway, here...


This is NOT a war. It is a limited involvement, in an international, humanitarian effort. He doesn't need the Obstructionists, for this matter, and more than likely, hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved, because he acted decisively, and withint the limits of his power.

I respect your opinion, but can't agree, that Boehner is doing anything positive, to aid the humanitarian cause. Shame on him, after pushing for the Bush's, illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq, on lies.

We are transfering power to NATO, as we should.

Going after the Libyan Army, is part of the UN resolution. We've had numerous no-floy zones, over the decades....many times.



The congressional Objections are nothing but a side show. They surely don't want to risk any firm opinion, particularly when their "Tea Party" is coming apart! LOL...

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/tea-party-fading-away-2011
G. </div></div>

And you will no doubt remain silent when all the woman are stuffed into burka's because Obama is helping the terrorists.

Pathetic.

Qtec
03-27-2011, 08:15 PM
Good post. Some well made points that I agree on but........ /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

1. The Left were not complaining about the cost of invading Iraq, that came later.

2. The main argument was "is this drastic action necessary? Is it legal?"

3. Cost [ as Maddow pointed out ] has never been a factor in America "doing the right thing."

If the drug lords in Mexico got together and waged war against the Mex Govt and Obama sent in the troops over the border to protect the Southern States ,would any GOPer stand up and say, "what's this going to cost?"


I think Bush was wrong to go into Iraq but I think O did right in Libya.

Q

Soflasnapper
03-28-2011, 12:46 AM
1. I agree.
2. I agree.
3. I agree.

Complaining about the cost omits or obscures the question of morality, and it shouldn't be the primary focus for anti-war sentiments.

The Iraq war failed the 'just war' tests propounded over the centuries, as nearly every organization of churches said before the war started, when they implored that we not go to war.

Worst case projections of a million dead there came true, even though this was supposed to be a cakewalk lasting a very short time.

The promise now that this will be a relatively clean and short-lived endeavor will likely prove false. Evidently, the rebels only have 1,000 trained fighters, and they cannot realistically best Khaddafi's forces in battle without trained men or available armor.

Gayle in MD
03-28-2011, 05:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1. I agree.
2. I agree.
3. I agree.

Complaining about the cost omits or obscures the question of morality, and it shouldn't be the primary focus for anti-war sentiments.

The Iraq war failed the 'just war' tests propounded over the centuries, as nearly every organization of churches said before the war started, when they implored that we not go to war.

Worst case projections of a million dead there came true, even though this was supposed to be a cakewalk lasting a very short time.

The promise now that this will be a relatively clean and short-lived endeavor will likely prove false. Evidently, the rebels only have 1,000 trained fighters, and they cannot realistically best Khaddafi's forces in battle without trained men or available armor. </div></div>

There is no doubt that events underway in that region, pose significant and unique problems, for the U.S. I've always been against arming radicals in the M.E., as so often, those same armed rebels, end up using them later, to kill American soldiers. Republicans have surely spent decades spreading arms to radicals, and propping up evil dictators, in the M.E. region, over the decades, bin Laden, and his followers, during Russia's Afghanistan Fubar, recipients, and a good example of that mistake.

In this case, the imminent, and eminent threat, was about as real as they come. I really don't see how the U.S., could have shrugged shoulders, and walked away, given the concert of appeals, from a host of allied nations.

G.

LWW
03-28-2011, 05:22 AM
See ... Gee loves war so long as it's a holy war endorsed by the messiah and dear leader.

Gayle in MD
03-28-2011, 05:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good post. Some well made points that I agree on but........ /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

1. The Left were not complaining about the cost of invading Iraq, that came later.

2. The main argument was "is this drastic action necessary? Is it legal?"

3. Cost [ as Maddow pointed out ] has never been a factor in America "doing the right thing."

If the drug lords in Mexico got together and waged war against the Mex Govt and Obama sent in the troops over the border to protect the Southern States ,would any GOPer stand up and say, "what's this going to cost?"


I think Bush was wrong to go into Iraq but I think O did right in Libya.

Q </div></div>

And, as it turned out, Bush's illegal invastion and occupation, in Iraq, emboldened our enemies, just as experts had warned him.

But then, most believe that that "Deshishon" as Bush would say, lol, had been made before the Supreme Court appointed him president. They went in determined to invade Iraq, for oil contracts, for their corporate friends, the U.S. Oil Cartel....

And, there is no doubt, bin Laden got away, because the resulting diversion of our resources to Iraq, Bush's pre-white House policy, to oour collective eye, off the enemy.

As Greenspan stated, Iraq, was about OIL. Tracking the financial results, proves it. Three Bush Administration oil industry operatives, told us we had to go, or we'd be facing the famous, "Mushroom Cloud" that didn't exist.

This operation is completely different, as you point out, and I do believe that President Obama, intends U.S. involvment remain limited to providing support, with other nations leading this effort.

I don't think anything would bring about a "boots on the ground," American involvment,.... he won't go there.

IMO, Gadaffi, in spite of his bravado, will either be killed, or he will crumble, and leave, as this uprising isn't going to fade, IMO, and his protectors are probably going to very soon prefer switching sides, rather than being hunted down by an international coalition, and charged with crimes of inhumanity.

G.

pooltchr
03-28-2011, 06:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I think Bush was wrong to go into Iraq but I think O did right in Libya.

Q </div></div>

Of course you do. I would expect nothing less.
I will give both you and Gayle credit for at least admitting your blind partisanship.

Steve

eg8r
03-28-2011, 09:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If we hadn't stepped in,</div></div>Did they attack us? Or are your grounds for going to war changing?

eg8r

eg8r
03-28-2011, 09:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Short answer, of course-- it is MORE than a little hypocritical, it's WAY hypocritical.

And so what, in the end? It is said that hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. If they now (however hypocritically) have stumbled into a correct position, as TRMS would agree they have (the right position, that is), we should take that as a good thing, and make common cause on this matter.
</div></div>Great response. qtip will never understand it though.

eg8r

Qtec
03-28-2011, 02:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Short answer, of course-- it is MORE than a little hypocritical, it's WAY hypocritical.

And so what, in the end? It is said that hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. If they now (however hypocritically) have stumbled into a correct position, as TRMS would agree they have (the right position, that is), we should take that as a good thing, and make common cause on this matter.
</div></div>Great response. qtip will never understand it though.

eg8r </div></div>

Brilliant response <span style="color: #990000"> LOL </span> except for the fact I said this,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Good post. Some well made points that I agree on </span> </div></div>

Try actually reading my posts before you go flapping your mouth. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif

Q

eg8r
03-28-2011, 08:21 PM
I have read enough of your posts to see you are merely covering your rear end because a person from you side has pointed out playground childish attitude. Sorry grumpy but he pegged you perfectly and now you are just trying to save face.

eg8r