Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization - 3/18/2007 7:08:40 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		Sinergy, because making war is not a civil crime.  All catagories of combatants are goverened under different laws than Domestic Criminal codes.  Padilla does have a lawyer, and is being charged with crimes.  I do not know why you are pretending otherwise.

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization - 3/27/2007 3:05:13 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline 		The Senate is now in process of debating the surrender timetable. But they aren't distracted from important items in the bill. The "pork buffet" is open. No party lines in one "ear-mark" spending provision.

At least they changed the date of surrender. It would begin within four months and be complete by March 2008. It comes closer to an immediate surrender which is what the incoming party of power represented that the citizens of the US wanted. 

quote:

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Like their counterparts in the House, the Senate has larded its version of an “emergency” war spending bill with nearly $20 billion in pork-barrel outlays, including $100 million for the two major political parties’ 2008 presidential conventions.
If the Senate bill goes to conference committee as written, the two chambers may find themselves fighting over the best cuts of pork. Source: http://www.examiner.com/a-640957~Senate__emergency__war_bill_has_almost__20_billion_in_domestic_spending_tacked_onto_it.html


I stand behind my opinion, the Democrats would have an easier time winning the White House in 2008 if they didn't hold the majority in the Senate and Congress. Look at the dilemma of Senator Clinton. She voted for the war originally, speaks that she is against setting a surrender deadline, speaks of supporting the troops, but may have to have a vote on record prior to any of the primaries. 

She already has to deal with this:
quote:

Half of voting-age Americans say they would not vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) if she became the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, according to a Harris Interactive poll released Tuesday.  http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/fifty-percent-of-americans-would-not-vote-for-clinton-2007-03-27.html 


And stay tuned - Senator Clinton will be a featured character on this Wednesday night's "South Park"!

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization - 3/27/2007 3:52:09 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy
I did not read th article- but i really have had it with the chorioraphed "debates".  A real debate doesnt look anything we have seen in recent years. it has turned into infotainment.
ild like to see the person on the street ask the questions, no editing no pre cue as to what questions can be asked.
real questions. real replies.
not the horse nad pony show we passively accept.


Agreed - and will stipulate that the last "real" debate was Lincoln/Douglas.

It doesn't take away from the attention that should be brought to bear on the Democrats in this instance. Remember, they are not saying they won't debate, they are saying they wont debate on Fox.


also agreed


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization - 5/3/2007 12:34:06 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline 		As expected the Bill brought to the President containing the surrender time-table along with all the pork spending has been vetoed. Assuming I'll be getting a silent response from those saying President Bush would, or must sign the Bill. Now the Democrats and Republican are "negotiating" a new bill eliminating the fixed time-table and replacing it with arbitrary "bench-marks", subject to qualitative interpretation by either side.

What hasn't been addressed is the spending portion of the Bill. The magician's trick of distraction is at work. While we are distracted with a surrender dates disappearing we fail to address the pork spending. 

Nowhere in this article or any other on this subject is the issue of the pork spending addressed. If the Bill returns only removing the surrender date, the President will sign it. Any doubt about the complicity and cooperation between the parties regarding their true mission - spending tax dollars on worthless programs, such as the study of tropical fish, should be removed.

WOW - the November election really effected change! - NOT!! 

quote:

By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, May 3, 2007; A01
President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.
Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president's veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. But party leaders made it clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) outlined a second measure that would step up Iraqi accountability, "transition" the U.S. military role and show "a reasonable way to end this war." Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR2007050201517_pf.html

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization - 5/3/2007 1:09:48 PM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline 		You know Merc (and beth too ), I've really changed my point of view on this issue. At first, I saw it very much like you did, as a surrender date ... but have come to see things a bit differently.

It has been discussed many times, that armed conflict requires a reason, and goal and an exit strategy. We will stay off the reason ... I just don't want to hear another meatcleaver "screed" on that matter ... and discuss the goal and exit strategy.

Wasn't the strategy to remove Saddam, and install an elected government? That was the stated goal and that goal was accomplished years ago. But of course, as soon as that goal was accomplished, another was put in place, and another, and another. Look ... if President Bush just wants to stay in Iraq forever, and have a continuing military presence, he should make his case and let the people decide. We did not elect him King.

Then we come to exit strategy. I'm sorry, if President Bush doesn't want to get one from the Democrats, perhaps he should come up with one of his own, and again ... clearly articulate it to the people, and let them decide.

So ... he has a floating goal, and an absence of any sort of exit strategy ... so his opponents gave him one. I personally have never played "bash the President" in the past, but by not presenting a plan of his one, and then trashing the one provided by Congress, he is proving to me that he is everything the people that flame him, say he is.

Also ... I think we may have to start considering, that Eisenhower may have been right, when he issued this warning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

Merc ... we have to start considering the notion that these people may be playing us ... they may just want this war to go on, and on, and on. It may be time, to consider Ike's warning.

Now, lets talk about deadlines, as it relates to war. War has always been fought on a deadline. The entire American Civil War was fought this way ... armies had enlistment deadlines, and leadership had to push for decisive battle, before enlistments ran out, and untrained troops took over. World War II, was a race to defeat the Germans, before they developed technology that would have flattened British cities ... and/or ... before the Soviets took all of Germany. Justinian and Theodora, sent Belisarius west in the sixth century, telling him they had the resources to support ten years of war, and that he had that long to take back the Western Roman Empire.

What is so different here? They asked for more men, and got them. Is it so unreasonable to insist that you must get results on a reasonable timetable?

I'm not buying the "surrender date" logic. I find it flawed and lacking in discovery of the very real and firm deadlines of warfare ... and have a very real concern that those pushing that sort of spin, are the sorts of leaders that Eisenhower warned us about.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization - 5/3/2007 1:34:07 PM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline 		I must have missed a step in the Padilla Case.
Last I heard the Courts had ruled that Padilla had to be tried as a criminal since he was an American Citizen arrested by Law enforcement officials on US soil.
But I could have lost track along the way.
For a change I think the Circut Court go it right Padilla gets one set of legal treatment and enemy combatant status is relegated to those captured on military battlefields.

Maybe I missed a ruling that reversed the decission somewhere.

And I do believe that the law should be broken down close to those lines
US citizen captured on battlefield by military = Combatant
US Citizen Arrested by Police = Criminal
Non US Citizen Captured on battlefield by military = Combatant
Non US Citizen arrested by police = Criminal




(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization - 5/3/2007 1:35:35 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

Then we come to exit strategy. I'm sorry, if President Bush doesn't want to get one from the Democrats, perhaps he should come up with one of his own, and again ... clearly articulate it to the people, and let them decide.

So ... he has a floating goal, and an absence of any sort of exit strategy ... so his opponents gave him one. I personally have never played "bash the President" in the past, but by not presenting a plan of his one, and then trashing the one provided by Congress, he is proving to me that he is everything the people that flame him, say he is.

caitlyn,
You missed the point of the last post.

First I believe we should have gotten our troops out yesterday, or today, or at the latest tomorrow. I have no support of this effort and have said many times that we should leave and allow the indigenous population to kill each other at their pleasure and under the direction of whatever government comes into power.

I'm addressing how the date, call it surrender time frame or whatever, was a smokescreen. 

If the goal of the newly empowered Democrats in the Senate and House was to end the war they had, and have, it in their power to do so - cut off funding effective June 1st and it's over. Strip the bill down to that basic item and I'll be out in the streets organizing a campaign for it, and push for President anyone who sponsors it.

It is a wait and see until the final version, but I'll be reading the details to see if we are still paying money for tropical fish and the storage of peanuts. I'm hoping not, but I'd bet we will.

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization - 5/3/2007 1:42:16 PM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline 		Pork is a bad thing.
 
What is often called pork, is just small bits of spending put on larger legislation. We don't so individual bills to addresss each small spending consideration. Instead, they are tagged on whatever is being voted on at the time. This is often called "pork" by those wishing to promote various political agendas.
 
I would hope that you would address Eisenhower's warning. It is a view that is gaining momentum in many circles.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization - 5/3/2007 1:55:58 PM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline 		Caitlyn I would limit the term "Pork" to spending items not related to the purpose stated in the "Purpose" section of the Act.
Personally I would eliminate the Umnibus Spending bills entirely, and force the Legislature to do their flippin job and read and vote on spending measures only with related to the purpose section of the bill.

If you can't tie a Shrimp crop subsidy to a purpose that is somehow related to Iraq it shouldn't be in the bill.

Personal Opinion

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization - 5/3/2007 1:58:36 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

I would hope that you would address Eisenhower's warning. It is a view that is gaining momentum in many circles.

caitlyn,
I'm pleased to know that they are teaching from the same text book with the same information as they did when I was in college, although I'm sure now its an digitalized version. President Eisenhower's MIC speech is an appropriate reference for every US military involvement. Without any war there is still military spending, with a war, the military needs more "consumables". Military suppliers have salesmen and lobbyists in the tens of thousands. Are they an influence - you bet. They were also an influence in Civil War, WWI, II, and every war before the Eisenhower administration. He gets more credit for the speech coming from a military background but he isn't unique in history pointing this out. Dig deep enough and you'll find writing by Cicero complained about Roman military expenditures, and the undue influence of suppliers for the military.

Sorry though, I will never rationalize the use and need of pork. A bill should stand on its own measure. Accepting a "business as usual" attitude on these expenditures is surrendering to them. It is ALWAYS pork if it isn't related to the primary issue of the bill.

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization - 5/3/2007 2:00:48 PM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline 		That isn't practical. If you assigned that limit, you would then require a bill, titled for each spending proposal, not matter how small. On the positive side, we could cure unemployment, since we would require right around five million members in Congress.

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization - 5/3/2007 2:05:15 PM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline 		So, anything attached to any bill, is pork?

Tell me, exactly how do you propose we do business in Washington? What would be workable?

Don't you think Ike's warning, goes a little deeper than discussions about military spending? To me, it's a clear warning, and one that I think any responsable American needs to start considering. When you see the objective as a constantly rising bar ... and see the excessively aggresive spin coming out of the White House, what other conclusion can you make?

"Date of surrender" ... isn't anything but inflammatory talk. These are the same people that once said, "Mission Accomplished!!!" You insist that we take Iran's leaders at their word ... what about ours? How can it be, that the same people that told us we accomplished the mission, are now telling us we are surrendering?

"Passing this bill is denying our troops bullets and body armor" ... is an out-and-out lie. If we didn't spend another dollar on this war, the military discressionary budget could finance it for years.

Come on Merc ... you are a reasonable person. Don't you think this needs to be looked at for what it is ... rather than what we want it to be? How often do we have to be lied to, before we actually call bullshit?

< Message edited by caitlyn -- 5/3/2007 2:17:17 PM >

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization - 5/3/2007 2:20:37 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline 		Two different issues:
quote:

That isn't practical. If you assigned that limit, you would then require a bill, titled for each spending proposal, not matter how small. On the positive side, we could cure unemployment, since we would require right around five million members in Congress.
caitlyn, Congress already does approve a National budget for every government expenditure, for every government department. It requires no additional work. The pork expenditures are in ADDITION to the already budgeted amount. For instance, when the bridge to nowhere was built in Alaska it was in addition to the budgeted spending already assigned to the Federal road building budget.

A current example? The reason why we currently need an additional spending bill for the troops in Iraq is because the budgeted amount has been spent.  

You have to work within a budget, so do I. Requiring Congress to do the same is wrong?

quote:

So, anything attached to any bill, is pork?

Tell me, exactly how do you propose we do business in Washington? What would be workable?


Here's an idea - you went over-budget and need more money, you put forth a clear bill to get it. If you want to build a bridge to nowhere in your district - you have to submit a bill specific to that expenditure.

I propose that Washington do business in a very different way. I propose they "do business" with integrity and under the brightest possible light of public scrutiny. You disagree?

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization - 5/3/2007 2:28:54 PM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline 		It isn't the government that spends outside the budget ... it is this administration. President Bush did the same thing in Texas, spending the surplus gathered by Mark White and Ann Richards ... then spending well past that.

Face it ... like him or not ... the man is a tax and spend liberal.

I'm sure you work within a budget. Tell me, did you pay cash for your home?

I guess the point I'm making, is that we really don't need to change the entire system, because of a few irresponsible (at least I see it that way) years, from a fiscally irresponsable administration supported by a party friendly congress.

Perhaps thats why I'm hoping for gridlock through 2008. I think we could manage for a while, without spending a damn thing.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization - 5/3/2007 2:54:46 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

It isn't the government that spends outside the budget ... it is this administration. President Bush did the same thing in Texas, spending the surplus gathered by Mark White and Ann Richards ... then spending well past that.

Face it ... like him or not ... the man is a tax and spend liberal.

I'm sure you work within a budget. Tell me, did you pay cash for your home?

I guess the point I'm making, is that we really don't need to change the entire system, because of a few irresponsible (at least I see it that way) years, from a fiscally irresponsable administration supported by a party friendly congress.

Perhaps thats why I'm hoping for gridlock through 2008. I think we could manage for a while, without spending a damn thing.


caitlyn,
I respect your intellect, but this entire response was irrelivant to the rest of our discussion.

No - I didn't pay cash, but I didn't go back to the bank at the half way point of payingm say I ran out of funds to build and expect to get more. Or keeping the comparison on point, I did not go to the bank with a budget for a house that included a portion of the funds to build a private experimental jet or a tropical fish santuary in rural Palos Verdes.

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization - 5/3/2007 3:09:05 PM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline 		Obviously, I don't see it as irrelivant.

There is no logical way to oppose knee-jerk America ...
  • The war didn't work out ... President must be a monkey.
  • The bill has a timetable ... It must be a surrender date.
  • The bill got vetod ... Our troops will be running around with empty guns.
  • There is additional spending in this bill ... It must be all pork.

How do you know that fish tank wasn't going to be on the next bill they debate? I guess my irrelivant point, is that the current system seems to have worked pretty well in the past, and I'm not sure that changing it because we have some irresponsible spending going on right now, is a good idea.

How about we put together a panel to study my irrelivant ideas? We can get funding by tagging it on the next Iraq war budget bill.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization - 5/3/2007 3:22:48 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

Sinergy, because making war is not a civil crime.


"Disturbing The Peace" sounds like it would cover it.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization - 5/3/2007 4:10:19 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

How do you know that fish tank wasn't going to be on the next bill they debate? I guess my irrelevant point, is that the current system seems to have worked pretty well in the past, and I'm not sure that changing it because we have some irresponsible spending going on right now, is a good idea.
The "irrelevance" was addressing that your response ignored these points: 

Here's an idea - you went over-budget and need more money, you put forth a clear bill to get it. If you want to build a bridge to nowhere in your district - you have to submit a bill specific to that expenditure.

I propose that Washington do business in a very different way. I propose they "do business" with integrity and under the brightest possible light of public scrutiny. You disagree?

...should I assume you can't?
 
You're answer is "this is the way it's always been done" satisfies you? I don't agree at all that it has "worked well". Wasted spending is never "working well". Not wasted spending for war, this one, past ones or future ones. Not wasted spending to address the homeless, the hungry, or the infirm. But since there are such people I do consider it wasted spending on tropical fish. Again - why don't you?

And if tropical fish or a bridge to nowhere is your definition of a "working" system than I guess you will re-elect everyone you can next election to continue the status quo.

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization - 5/3/2007 4:21:55 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Here's an idea - you went over-budget and need more money, you put forth a clear bill to get it. If you want to build a bridge to nowhere in your district - you have to submit a bill specific to that expenditure.

I will point out that ALL the run on terroism  monies funding has been by supplemental expenditure bills, it don't show on the books right---

no budget has been presented,  it is pork barrel by conception---


As I said before; a billion here a billion there, and pretty soon, you're talking about some real money.

Sen. Everett Dirkson 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization - 5/3/2007 4:27:46 PM   
domiguy


Posts: 12952
Joined: 5/2/2006
Status: offline 		The piggy backing of bills has to be removed along with the lobbyists....A bill should stand on its own and not be hidden from the light of day when attached to another that carries more weight....It is truly a problem and it goes to show just how lazy and conniving are elected officials truly are.

_____________________________



(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.141