Lib history

[Stoner]

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/cartoon-corner/Remember-big.jpg

[ViolaLee]

This one's got a few fallacies.

Failure to secure our borders and kill FISA are Bush administration faults.

No one is ignoring Iran, Dems just aren't talking about invading them like Repubs. Dems know we don't have enough troops for Iraq, let alone Iran.

The wiretapping program and the patriot act have constitutional violations as the courts have determined.

And closing Gitmo would restore our status as a human nation. Well, partly anyway.

[Yamel]

Oh yeah the Democrats are talking about it but like with Iraq they do nothing about it. Talk is cheap and so are the democrats. By the way wiretapping and spying on terrorists and enemies of the U.S. is not violating the Constitution. I believe that the Constitution was meant to protect the U.S. and its people not terrorists. I do not think that when they are listening in on conversations over the phone they are listening to Bobby talking about his sexuality with Johnny. They wouldn't waste their time. If they want to listen in on me because I have an Arab name go for it because they would waste their time. But if they have a reason to do so they should to save your a-- and mines.

[Alonzo]

Lib history? So our history only goes back 6 years?

On second thought, it's a conservative cartoon. Go back too far and you hit things like the civil rights movement, which certainly don't help your argument.

[preservanation]

Lib history, hmmm.....

At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun fourteen hours and thirteen minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for fifty-seven working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey, the bill's manager, concluded he had the sixty-seven votes required at that time to end the debate. WASHINGTON — Fortified with a good rest, a steam bath and a sirloin steak, Sen. Strom Thurmond (then a Democrat[sic]) talked against a 1957 civil rights bill for 24 hours and 18 minutes — longer than anyone has ever talked about anything in Congress.

The South Carolina senator, then a Democrat, opened his one-man filibuster on Aug. 28, 1957, at 8:54 p.m. against the bill, which he said was unconstitutional and "cruel and unusual punishment."

Republican leader Sen. William Knowland of California retorted that Thurmond's endless speech was cruel and unusual punishment to his colleagues. But Thurmond kept on.

Other Southern Democrats detested the bill but held their tongues, clearly outnumbered. Some grumbled that he was grandstanding for folks back home and broke an agreement not to filibuster.http://www.core-online.org/Features/_overlay/filibuster3.htm

Zo Wrote:
Go back too far and you hit things like the civil rights movement, which certainly don't help your argument. I bet you wish you didn't go there!
LOL

[Alonzo]

You want to debate that issue at length feel free to start a thread on it and I'll point out why you're wrong.

You can also simply read this thread:

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=1797&pid=16878#pid16878

Post 5 and down.

[April15]

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/cartoon-corner/Remember-big.jpg
If the last box was labeled failure in Iraq it would be the conservatives history.

[namguy]

Oh yeah the Democrats are talking about it but like with Iraq they do nothing about it. Talk is cheap and so are the democrats. By the way wiretapping and spying on terrorists and enemies of the U.S. is not violating the Constitution. I believe that the Constitution was meant to protect the U.S. and its people not terrorists. I do not think that when they are listening in on conversations over the phone they are listening to Bobby talking about his sexuality with Johnny. They wouldn't waste their time. If they want to listen in on me because I have an Arab name go for it because they would waste their time. But if they have a reason to do so they should to save your a-- and mines.


We don't have a Democrat as president, the Dems can only do so much even with control of the house and senate.

[Scorpion]

We don't have a Democrat as president, the Dems can only do so much even with control of the house and senate.


Yes, but the Democrats can and should do much more then they have. Blaming the Bush administration for the woes of the Democrats is not accurate.

[namguy]

We don't have a Democrat as president, the Dems can only do so much even with control of the house and senate.


Yes, but the Democrats can and should do much more then they have. Blaming the Bush administration for the woes of the Democrats is not accurate.


Hea Mike
I wasn't referring to the woes that the Dems have, I'm saying Bush is a bad president. I'm not alone in my thoughts about Bush, his own party separated themselves from him.
Take care.

[Scorpion]

We don't have a Democrat as president, the Dems can only do so much even with control of the house and senate.


Yes, but the Democrats can and should do much more then they have. Blaming the Bush administration for the woes of the Democrats is not accurate.


Hea Mike
I wasn't referring to the woes that the Dems have, I'm saying Bush is a bad president. I'm not alone in my thoughts about Bush, his own party separated themselves from him.
Take care.


I agree that Bush is incompetant.

[namguy]

We don't have a Democrat as president, the Dems can only do so much even with control of the house and senate.


Yes, but the Democrats can and should do much more then they have. Blaming the Bush administration for the woes of the Democrats is not accurate.


Hea Mike
I wasn't referring to the woes that the Dems have, I'm saying Bush is a bad president. I'm not alone in my thoughts about Bush, his own party separated themselves from him.
Take care.


I agree that Bush is incompetant.


Indeed so Mike:thumbsup: