The Republicans hate our troops

[livendive 8]

I kid you not...the Democrats tried to fund the war into next year and the Republicans blocked the funding. Unpatriotic bastards...someone needs to show them the door. America - Love it or leave it!

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[lawrocket 3]

This falls along the lines of my thread a year ago where the dems voted against the minimum wage because ti was tied to the war funding bill.

Here we've got the Dems voting FOR The war funding bill - without a minimum wage. A year ago they voted AGAINST it even though it HAD a minimum wage - and the GOP voted FOR it.

Ah, politics are soooo fun!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Maybe this is why... I'll see if I can find the text of the bill....

Quote

The Republicans complained that Democrats short-circuited the legislative process by taking the bill straight to the floor without an opportunity for them to offer changes or debate the merits.

Certainly *THAT* could NEVER happen in the "most open and most ethical Congress in history", could it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,120]

>Certainly *THAT* could NEVER happen in the "most open and most
>ethical Congress in history", could it?

It will be fun to watch the republicans squeal when the democrats use the same legislative tricks the GOP used to get their way when they were in the majority. And it will be a good thing overall - a government that can't get anything done is a government that governs least, and that's the best kind.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

It will be fun to watch the republicans squeal when the democrats use the same legislative tricks the GOP used to get their way when they were in the majority

Which were the same that the Dems used when THEY were in the majority. Priot to that, the GOP was in the majority, where they used the same tricks, which they themselves learned from the dems when THEY were in the majority, and the dems learned it from....

Quote

a government that can't get anything done is a government that governs least, and that's the best kind.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Certainly *THAT* could NEVER happen in the "most open and most
>ethical Congress in history", could it?

It will be fun to watch the republicans squeal when the democrats use the same legislative tricks the GOP used to get their way when they were in the majority. And it will be a good thing overall - a government that can't get anything done is a government that governs least, and that's the best kind.

(bolded, above) - THAT, I certainly can't argue with!!

I did find some further info -

Clicky for quotes, below:

---

Pelosi is plotting a "guns-for-butter" strategy to try to force Bush to accept some new domestic spending in exchange for the money he needs to fight the war. The speaker is floating a proposal to extend unemployment benefits for 13 weeks for those whose benefits have run out. The package also could include a new GI Bill benefit to help veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan pay for college.

Bush is already vowing to veto any spending that goes over his $108 billion request. House Republicans, eager for an election-year fight with Democrats over spending, are pledging to back up his veto threat.

"We're going to insist that this is about funding the troops and nothing else," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last week.

---

---

House leaders may be able to get around the issue by splitting the votes. Last May, Democrats used a similar tactic, staging votes on two amendments - one for $22 billion in domestic spending, and another for $98 billion for the two wars - to allow anti-war lawmakers to vote for the domestic spending, but against the money for the war.

The strategy would let many Democratic lawmakers register their opposition to the war, but it wouldn't change the outcome. The Senate would eventually wrap all the spending into one package to send to the White House for Bush's signature.

Democrats may use the bill to put Republicans on the defensive by offering an amendment to boost tax incentives for renewable energy as well as language that would block the administration from implementing new rules that would cut Medicaid payments and shift those costs to the states.

---

---

But anti-war activists say Democrats are being disingenuous by claiming to oppose the war while also preparing to give the president even more war funding than he requested.

"They are the biggest hypocrites in the world," said Medea Benjamin, the San Francisco-based founder of the anti-war group CodePink. "They want to paint the Republicans as warmongers and they want to keep funding the war, and they think we don't see through this?"

---

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[akarunway 1]

Quote

I kid you not...the Democrats tried to fund the war into next year and the Republicans blocked the funding. Unpatriotic bastards...someone needs to show them the door. America - Love it or leave it! Must not be enough pork in the barrel for all.

Blues,
Dave

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Gene03 0]

Remember the old bumper sticker from the 60's?

"America, fix it or Fuck it."

I would like to amend that sentiment.

"America, fix it or We're all fucked.

“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him.

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966)

[Amazon 7]

Quote

This is not the time we have agreed on something but dayum this one is completely in sync with my thinking

[Amazon 7]

Quote

The package also could include a new GI Bill benefit to help veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan pay for college.

So basically the repubicans dont want to support the trrops.. yet again... or is it that they dont want to support americans AFTER they have survived being troops.. and are no longer worthy of repubican support

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The package also could include a new GI Bill benefit to help veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan pay for college.

So basically the repubicans dont want to support the trrops.. yet again... or is it that they dont want to support americans AFTER they have survived being troops.. and are no longer worthy of repubican support

Oh, of COURSE that's why they voted it down... how silly of me to think it might be due to some sort of pork project...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Oh, of COURSE that's why they voted it down... how silly of me to think it might be due to some sort of pork project...

Sure Mike.. you go ahead and call it pork if you like..... it seems to be THE thing to do in the right wing politic of the day...

But I call it helping the troops and supporting them after they have EARNED it...and where most of them have been... they deserve better than what is currently being offered to them

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Oh, of COURSE that's why they voted it down... how silly of me to think it might be due to some sort of pork project...

Sure Mike.. you go ahead and call it pork if you like..... it seems to be THE thing to do in the right wing politic of the day...

But I call it helping the troops and supporting them after they have EARNED it...and where most of them have been... they deserve better than what is currently being offered to them

Then put up or shut up....find quotes that show that specific reason is why it was voted down.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,120]

>Oh, of COURSE that's why they voted it down... how silly of me to think
>it might be due to some sort of pork project...

Why Mike, it seems like only yesterday that you were saying things like:

---------
Only if you include the Congresscritters that say "I support the troops" out of one side of their mouths, while lobbying to cut their funding with the other side.
---------

What a difference a few months makes!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Oh, of COURSE that's why they voted it down... how silly of me to think
>it might be due to some sort of pork project...

Why Mike, it seems like only yesterday that you were saying things like:

---------
Only if you include the Congresscritters that say "I support the troops" out of one side of their mouths, while lobbying to cut their funding with the other side.
---------

What a difference a few months makes!

Yes, I did...and there were plenty of news reports providing proof of it, which is NOT the case here.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,120]

>and there were plenty of news reports providing proof of it, which is NOT
>the case here.

Proof that republicans are withholding support for the troops because of politics:

=================================
House rejects bill funding Iraq, Afghanistan wars

By ANDREW TAYLOR – 3 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Democratic-led House on Thursday rejected more funds to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as many Republicans angry over the majority party's tactics sat out the vote. It did approve more money for the jobless and an expansion of GI education benefits.

In a rapid series of votes on the war funding bill and accompanying components, Republicans withheld their votes in protest, leading to the defeat of the Iraq funding legislation by a 149-141 tally.
==================================

So. Troop's lives used to buttress a republican political protest. Quite a stance to be proud of, I suppose. And if a few hundred troops die? Well, at least no money was wasted.

[mnealtx 0]

Wow, that certainly seems familiar, now doesn't it?

Quote

The top Democrats — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada — say they will withhold troop funds for at least the rest of the year if Mr. Bush does not accept the pullout timetable.

So. Troop's lives used to buttress a Democratic political protest. Quite a stance to be proud of, I suppose. And if a few hundred troops die? Well, at least no money was wasted.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,120]

>So. Troop's lives . . .

etc etc.

I think this might be a turning point for you, Mike! You're starting to realize the parties are basically the same. Now we'll see if that's reflected in your future posts.

Members of neither party wants to see US troops die, primarily because they are decent human beings, and secondarily because they know that's political suicide. The one "gotcha" is Bush. From every indication, he is perfectly willing to see a few thousand troops die for lack of supplies to get his war pushed as far as it can - and he has the ability to withhold funding (via his veto) for as long as it takes to get Congress to do what he wants. They know this, and thus all this arguing over pork etc is pointless. He will get his war funding because congress does not have the stomach to use the troops for political gain to the extent he does. (Which is good, IMO.)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>So. Troop's lives . . .

etc etc.

I think this might be a turning point for you, Mike! You're starting to realize the parties are basically the same. Now we'll see if that's reflected in your future posts.

Members of neither party wants to see US troops die, primarily because they are decent human beings, and secondarily because they know that's political suicide. The one "gotcha" is Bush. From every indication, he is perfectly willing to see a few thousand troops die for lack of supplies to get his war pushed as far as it can - and he has the ability to withhold funding (via his veto) for as long as it takes to get Congress to do what he wants. They know this, and thus all this arguing over pork etc is pointless. He will get his war funding because congress does not have the stomach to use the troops for political gain to the extent he does. (Which is good, IMO.)

Funny... I can find dozens of posts that I've written that say both parties are basically the same... what finally clued you in?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

And it will be a good thing overall - a government that can't get anything done is a government that governs least, and that's the best kind.

And that is exactly why I will be voting republican in the next election. Democratic congress + republican executive = only the really important shit gets done and nobody runs amok with their own agenda.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

And it will be a good thing overall - a government that can't get anything done is a government that governs least, and that's the best kind.

And that is exactly why I will be voting republican in the next election. Democratic congress + republican executive = only the really important shit gets done and nobody runs amok with their own agenda.

The only problem I have with that is the area of Foreign Policy, because that is the issue in which the President has the most leeway. (In domestic issues, the president's decisions are more tempered by Congress, and I don't think the President has much of an effect on the economy eitherway).

And in terms of Foreign Policy, I believe we need to make a clean break from the Neo-Cons. McCain is too close ideologically to the Neo-Cons for my taste.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

And it will be a good thing overall - a government that can't get anything done is a government that governs least, and that's the best kind.

And that is exactly why I will be voting republican in the next election. Democratic congress + republican executive = only the really important shit gets done and nobody runs amok with their own agenda.

While I haven't ever actually used a vote in that manner, I completely agree with the sentiment and have stated as much here during previous elections. Unfortunately in this case, I don't think I can do it. I want a true statesman in the white house dealing with foreign policy matters. Congress can't tell the Executive what he can and cannot say to other countries. Another saber-rattler would be disastrous, so I'll risk the possibility of some domestic social "reform" to ensure we have more wisdom than bravado.

I'm surprised you'll be voting for McCain, given the number of supreme court jurists he'll potentially be appointing. You think the DNC controlled Congress will be able to sufficiently moderate his appointments?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rehmwa 2]

ideal for me?

Balanced Congress that's slightly Dem in one house and slightly Rep in the other - but without enough swing to overturn vetos - they need to EARN their laws

VERY fiscally conservative President - socially neutral (Libertarian) (to keep the pursestrings on Congress) - Strong on defense, but stronger on diplomacy, strongest on keeping out from under any type of "world governing body" concepts

VERY conservative Judicial (explicit definition of powers of congress, no activism, stick to the letter of the law where 'interpretation' means essentially they slap down the lower courts when they overstep their duties - slaps down Congress when they go unconstitutional - doesn't legislate, but sends the laws back to congress for rework when not clear)


balance all three of these branches on a needle so they can't accomplish anything unless it's absolutely necessary - even better, they just can't do anything

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

And that is exactly why I will be voting republican in the next election. Democratic congress + republican executive = only the really important shit gets done and nobody runs amok with their own agenda.

I can really respect that sentiment and I do like the idea of balance in Washington but I can't think that way this fall. McCain's foreign policy and potential judicial appointments scare me. Of course that's only if we're to believe what he's saying. He may just be pandering to, as Jon Stewart put it, Crazy Base World

[livendive 8]

That all sounds good to me, with the exception that I'm not horribly opposed to limited global treaties. Like it or not, we have to share this planet with others, and sometimes I think we ought to compromise to reach agreements that are good for the whole community.

Edit to add: Also I want a Congress that isn't a bunch of pushovers. The executive branch has grabbed far too much power in recent decades.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)