Berkeley, CA Wants Marines Out

[spike]

I agree, they should be trying harder. However, you'll have to agree there's a certain number of votes required to override a veto.

Kinda comes down to the guy doing the vetoing to a large extent eh?

 

[Cerise]

You need to brush up on how Congress works. They need enough votes to override a veto.

In the same manner that this is not a totalitarian, authoritarian regime----it is not "Bush's War."

The U.S. Congress PASSED a resolution AUTHORIZING President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States against Iraq. That's how Congress works.

Learn it, live it---it will set you free.

 

[chcr]

I agree, they should be trying harder. However, you'll have to agree there's a certain number of votes required to override a veto.

Kinda comes down to the guy doing the vetoing to a large extent eh?

He's a(n) [insert denigrating epithet here] for sure, but from where I sit they haven't even made what I can call an effort. They were elected for a reason and they clearly don't give a fuck what the people want.

 

[spike]

In the same manner that this is not a totalitarian, authoritarian regime----it is not "Bush's War."

The U.S. Congress PASSED a resolution AUTHORIZING President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States against Iraq. That's how Congress works.

Learn it, live it---it will set you free.

Bush is the Commander-in-Chief, therefore it is his war. He lied to Congress.

Learn it, live it---it will set you free. Did you have some point earlier about the people with signs?

 

[Cerise]

"Thank God for Dead Soldiers" is a pretty sick Con statement don't you think?

Again.....point?

How do you come to the conclusion that members of WBC are conservative?

And, I bet you're diggin' the fact that in that pic one of them treads on the American flag, aren't ya?

 

[Cerise]

Bush is the Commander-in-Chief, therefore it is his war. He lied to Congress.

Jane, you ignorant slut!

Learn it, live it---it will set you free. Did you have some point earlier about the people with signs?

Libs are gullible. They have no basis in fact for the scrawled statements on the signs. Comprende?

 

[spike]

Libs are gullible. They have no basis in fact for the scrawled statements on the signs. Comprende?

Cons are gullible. They have no basis in fact for the statements on their signs either.

You have as little basis in fact for believing all Libs believe like your protester as there is for believing all Cons are like Phelps and Crew. Therefore you are as gullible and ignorant as any of them.

 

[paul_valaru]

It's spelled gullable, look it up

*snickers*

 

[chcr]

Either or. Gullible is more common in my experience though but I might just be being gullable.

Main Entry:
gull·ible
Variant(s):
also gull·able \ˈgə-lə-bəl\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1818

: easily duped or cheated
— gull·ibil·i·ty Listen to the pronunciation of gullibility \ˌgə-lə-ˈbi-lə-tē\ noun
— gull·ibly Listen to the pronunciation of gullibly \ˈgə-lə-blē\ adverb

 

[paul_valaru]

Either or. Gullible is more common in my experience though but I might just be being gullable.

I just made you look up gullible in the dictionary.

 

[jimpeel]

You need to brush up on how Congress works. They need enough votes to override a veto.

Luckily the idiot-in-chief will be gone soon.

Shall we keep this post handy to show you what happens after the dems take over the Senate, House, and Executive and still can't get the votes, can't get the backing, and can't get the "new" president to sign off on it?

 

[jimpeel]

Bush is the Commander-in-Chief, therefore it is his war. He lied to Congress.

Learn it, live it---it will set you free. Did you have some point earlier about the people with signs?

So if Obama or Hillary is the president does that make it their war just because they are the Commender In Chief? What if they don't do what you want? Does that make them Cons? Lord knows they've conned you.

 

[jimpeel]

It's spelled gullable, look it up

*snickers*

If you go to dictionaruy.com and search for "gullible you get this:

gul·li·ble
[guhl-uh-buhl]
–adjective easily deceived or cheated.

Also, gul·la·ble.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1815–25; gull2 + -ible]

—Related forms
gul·li·bil·i·ty, noun
gul·li·bly, adverb


—Synonyms credulous, trusting, naive, innocent, simple, green.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

If you search on "gullable" you get this:

gul·li·ble /ˈgʌləbəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[guhl-uh-buhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective easily deceived or cheated.

Also, gul·la·ble.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1815–25; gull2 + -ible]

—Related forms
gul·li·bil·i·ty, noun
gul·li·bly, adverb


—Synonyms credulous, trusting, naive, innocent, simple, green.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

The correct spelling is GULLIBLE. Get used to it.

 

[spike]

Oh, that's too funny. Good work Paul.

 

[2minkey]

Oh, that's too funny. Good work Paul.

yes, very nice work indeed.

i am not uptight!

 

[Cerise]

Gullibility, and band-aids on foreheads would be my guess.

SnP started it.

Then, someone named Mr. Gullibility proved it.




But, hell yeah.

 

[Cerise]

Libs are gullible. They have no basis in fact for the scrawled statements on the signs. Comprende?

Cons are gullible. They have no basis in fact for the statements on their signs either.

 

[spike]

Right, you found some guy with a sign. I found a group with signs. Your point is nowhere to be found.

 

[Gonz]

but from where I sit they haven't even made what I can call an effort. They were elected for a reason and they clearly don't give a fuck what the people want.

Whgether you're talking about the previous Congress or the present one, that fits.

 

[Gato_Solo]

spike, no one wants us out any more than me but I have to agree with Cerise. If it was as important as the democrats pretended it was to them, they would have tried harder. They barely paid it lip service and went on about their business. They're either spineless pussies or it really is a one party system after all. I think you know which side of that argument I choose, and the sooner more people figure that out the better I'll like it.

You know...if they were so anti-war, they could've voiced their opinions before this whole thing started instead of trying to look 'tough' with somebody else's life. When political expediency takes precedence over your convictions, you have nothing. "I voted for the war before I voted against it" is a bigger farce than anything ever coming out of the White House. I'd also like to point out that Saddam Hussein intentionally made it look as though he had those weapons...yet again...in order to stop that line of stupidity. I call it that because it has been brought up before, and it is no longer in the realm of ignorance. Since my life is on the line I can say, for a fact, that I don't want to be here. Since I am, I have the need, and the impetus, to do what Congress has tasked me to do. When I come home, and see the 'refuse' belittling my efforts, and calling this whole thing 'illegal', it only proves to me how 'out of touch' the anti-war element actually is. Then they compound their arrogance with the whole 'Berkeley' fiasco, and they border on treason. Ask yourself a question...why did Berkeley change their perceived stance? If they are so correct, then why didn't they stick to their values? Since the Democrats hold the House and the Senate, surely they could've come up with the votes to naysay those nasty Republican lawmakers and keep their funding.