President George W. Bush will soon seek about $100 billion in additional emergency funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report on Wednesday by Democratic staffers for two key panels in the U.S. House of Representatives.  
In a broad report criticizing Republicans' fiscal decisions, Democratic staffers on the House Appropriations Committee and House Budget Committee also noted that Congress already had appropriated about $379 billion for the war in Iraq.
It's about time...
budfields: To deny W the money.  
Yes, the knee-jerk 3% of the country who still believe in this idiot President will wail and gnash their teeth and say 'what about the troops? You'll kill the troops!'  
Well, a) Mr. Simian is doing that quite well already, and b) they won't all die if they flee Iraq fast enough.
I wish there was some way to make you understand that by speaking in your accustomed manner, you seriously injure the causes you wish to be an advocate for. You are the Liberal that liberal-haters hate, and it's not because you're speaking truth to power, it's because you say jerky and inappropriate things. One might be tempted to describe it as douchebaggery, if one were so inclined (and I am not).
budfields: Got anything substantive to add to the content-free personal attacks?  
Then shut up and get off my case. Thanks.
budfields: If you use a teenage epithet like 'douchebaggery', and then lamely pretend to be above saying it, it's about an order of magnitude more pathetic than just saying it and owning up to it.  
What's your plan, genius? Throw $1.5 trillion more good money after the bad? All I'm saying is that we're about at the point where it's time to stop spending money on this criminal endeavor.  
What do you find so offensive about that? Oh, wait, I forgot. You don't do substance.
FuzzyDave: Knock it off.  
Darkstar isn't tolerating this sort of behavior, Bud; so, if you're looking to have your account banned, then by all means keep it up.  
FuzzyDave: And I'm not saying this as a personal attack.  
I'm an admin and this is my job.
budfields: So I get personally attacked, respond, and the admin response is targeted solely at me, and not the user who began the personal attacks?  
That's rather interesting.  
Since when did LF start banning users for standing up for themselves? That's new.
FuzzyDave: 1. You posted the first comment -- the content of which is unacceptable by LF's new ownership.  
2. Fluffy's comment to you was not a personal attack.  
3. Your responses were also in violation.  
4. Complaining won't help your cause.  
Seriously. I'm not targeting you. I'm not picking on you. I'm trying to keep you from getting tossed out.  
If you want to keep complaining about how this is unfair, fine. I'm not going to respond to it.  
If you keep making comments like you did above, you're going to be booted.  
That's the way things are.
budfields: Sorry, Dave, but referring to my comments as 'jerky' and using the term 'douchbaggery' is a personal attack.  
Sorry, Dave, but my first comment was not in violation of any LF policy I have ever seen or read. Unless insulting the President got outlawed lately. If so, someone please educate me.  
Seriously, anyone who can read Fluffy's comment and NOT see a personal attack, and then find the problem in my first comment, instead, has some blinders on that I'm not familiar with. Another user has since posted on this thread, and they also picked up on Fluffy's clear personal attack.
fb-: Are you this angry in real life? Or is this just some internet forum troll thing you've picked up recently?
I retract any statements I made which could be interpreted as personally insulting.
budfields: I appreciate that, Fluffy.  
I am still genuinely interested, however, in what was so offensive about my statement. I didn't mean to be crass about the danger to the troops, but I am angry about throwing another trillion dollars at this war, which is apparently what's going to happen. Seems to me the troops are far safer if we defund this mess and get out now.
foot2000: fluffy you seem to have made the same mistake that W has made all too often.  
Attacking the person instead of attacking the idea. If you don't like a person's opinion, post a reply that directly addresses the opinion.  
otherwise it is you that end's up being a douchebag.  
on that note, i don't think we CAN cut off the money flow now. that would not benefit anyone. we're stuck fighting a war noone wants and have to see it through. what other realistic Choice do we have?
budfields: Au contraire, cutting the money off now WOULD benefit someone.  
It'd benefit the 250,000 or so American families of troops and US contractors who would see their husbands, wives and children come home, mostly unharmed, and a lot sooner.  
It'd benefit US taxpayers, who over time would see the benefits of $1.5 trillion or so more dollars funneled into education, health care, and yes, real national defense efforts like port security, none of which we'll be able to afford if more money is squandered in Iraq.  
I can't even count how many folks who would benefit.  
Even the folks in Iraq would most likely benefit, in the long run.  
For voicing this outrageous opinion, I first get a personal attack and then an admin kickout threat.  
I'm still waiting for the first serious person to come in and disagree on the facts.
which of these two things:  
"a) Mr. Simian is doing that quite well already, and  
b) they won't all die if they flee Iraq fast enough."  
do you find substantive, and in what way? To me, it looks like you're still doing nothing but baiting the Right. You're not taking the situation in Iraq seriously, and it shows in the callous and unrealistic "suggestions" you made in your comment. That doesn't help your agenda or anyone else's, it just gives ammunition to people who want to think that Libruls are all just like you. I'm tired of being lumped in with people who can't see the forest for the trees (or the axe they're grinding to try and fell them). If you can't behave yourself, how can you expect anything but the same old divisive tactics from your opponents?
fb-: You are the Liberal that liberal-haters hate, and it's not because you're speaking truth to power, it's because you say jerky and inappropriate things. One might be tempted to describe it as douchebaggery, if one were so inclined (and I am not).  
Pretty much.
budfields: Thanks for that insightful and substantive addition, fb.
fb-: Bud, I'm not going to get into it with you. I'm not going to be dragged down by the BS. I'm not going to be part of your little tantrums and I'm not going to add fuel to the fire.  
All I can say is that you are on my ignore list and goodbye. Please don't bother reading my posts, responding to my posts, or greeting me when I sign on LF by filling my chatter with /p's composed of profanity and attacks.  
Good bye.
budfields: I see no need for the lies, fb.  
I've sent you _one_ chat, ever. It contained zero profanities.  
There was no spamming, and there were no profanities. The admin logs can easily confirm this.  
Why the lies?
darkstar: Time for everyone to move on to another thread, please. Many thanks! :)