RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization

RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

selfbnd411 -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (5/3/2007 4:31:26 PM)
Hooray for old threads!

Mercnbeth -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (5/3/2007 4:57:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: 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 terrorism 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 Excellent point. No "pork" spending - no war in Iraq. I take it there would be no dissension from either side of the philosophical left/right. It would also make the vote specific. Senator Kerry may be the current President since he wouldn't be confused and be on record regarding his Iraq war funding vote as saying; "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." in consideration of the other pork items in the bill. It's hard to remember your voting record when you have to consider if a new fish pond expenditure for your district may have been included.

Sinergy -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (5/3/2007 10:25:36 PM)
I personally find it interesting that a discussion of the relevance to riders on bills (often used for funding amendments that are considered "pork") are found on a thread entitlted "Democratic Surrender and Polarization." What exactly does the Democratic party's "surrender" have to do with bill riders? Sinergy

Mercnbeth -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (5/4/2007 7:22:42 AM)
quote: What exactly does the Democratic party's "surrender" have to do with bill riders? The Democrats are the party in power. They introduced a bill allegedly to end the war putting a time frame on surrender; but had to include more pork spending than the spending requested by the President to fund the war in order to bribe representatives with spending in their district. As expected, the bill was vetoed and they've surrendered to the fact they can't override the veto. The bill will be resubmitted without any surrender date. The question is, will the pork portions of the bill they needed to include to buy votes be removed when it is resubmitted? To me it has relevance and is a question worth asking. We voted for a change. I'm waiting for one.

farglebargle -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (5/4/2007 9:44:38 AM)
"The Democrats are the party in power. They introduced a bill allegedly to end the war putting a time frame on surrender; but had to include more pork spending than the spending requested by the President to fund the war in order to bribe representatives with spending in their district." So? That's how bills are passed. You do know that LEGISLATION does NOT originate with The President? He may have sent in some SUGGESTIONS, but who the hell really cares what the hell he wants? It's is Congresses job to appropriate monies and pass laws. It's the Executives job to SPEND MONIES and EXECUTE LAWS. Where did this quaint notion of him originating the budget come from? And again the question... WHY didn't Bush ask for this money in the REGULAR BUDGET? This is what? The SIXTH time this fiscally irresponsible piece of shit comes begging for MORE MONEY? He spends more than any Liberals ever could! I feel SORRY for his dad, if this is how he was during college. The phone NEVER RANG unless Georgie has his hand-out....

luckydog1 -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (5/4/2007 10:21:49 AM)
I personally find it interesting that a discussion of the relevance to riders on bills (often used for funding amendments that are considered "pork") are found on a thread entitlted "Democratic Surrender and Polarization." What exactly does the Democratic party's "surrender" have to do with bill riders? Because while Reid and Pelosi insist that it is the will of the poeple to get a timeline in Iraq, they have to put a bunch of pork on it to get it passed. If it were really what the poeple demanded, it would not need pork would it?

Sinergy -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (5/4/2007 2:19:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: What exactly does the Democratic party's "surrender" have to do with bill riders? The Democrats are the party in power. They introduced a bill allegedly to end the war putting a time frame on surrender; but had to include more pork spending than the spending requested by the President to fund the war in order to bribe representatives with spending in their district. As expected, the bill was vetoed and they've surrendered to the fact they can't override the veto. The bill will be resubmitted without any surrender date. The question is, will the pork portions of the bill they needed to include to buy votes be removed when it is resubmitted? To me it has relevance and is a question worth asking. We voted for a change. I'm waiting for one. Well, the problem AnencephalyBoy has is that unless he can get Congress to write a new budget for government expenditures, by law, the amount of money he will have to fund his little war will be the lowest of the following. 1) The amount approved in the House 2) The amount approved in the Senate 3) The previous year's amount. Of course, he wants to escalate his war, which costs more money. So it is a Mexican standoff. He cannot do anything without coming to an agreement with them, and I think it is safe to point out that finding common ground with other's is not his strong suit. By the same token, Congress cannot do anything because he will veto everything he doesnt like and the Republican's are voting to protect the President. The bill might be resubmitted without a surrender date. I doubt this will happen. Why should Congress give him what he wants? They can do nothing and he still ends up stuck. They might do something else he will object to and have him veto it again. I think this would be the most amusing approach, although not the most rational approach. He really doesnt need any more drops in his popularity. The bill might be resubmitted word for word, just to give him another opportunity to veto it. He needs Congress more than Congress needs him. I suspect there is nobody in the Executive Branch who can explain the situation to him. There will not be a change until Congress starts working the way it used to work before the Republican-controlled Congress lowered the bar for professionalism and competence to the bottom of the Marianas Trench. Sinergy

farglebargle -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (5/4/2007 3:22:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 I personally find it interesting that a discussion of the relevance to riders on bills (often used for funding amendments that are considered "pork") are found on a thread entitlted "Democratic Surrender and Polarization." What exactly does the Democratic party's "surrender" have to do with bill riders? Because while Reid and Pelosi insist that it is the will of the poeple to get a timeline in Iraq, they have to put a bunch of pork on it to get it passed. If it were really what the poeple demanded, it would not need pork would it? Well, they HAD to do something to get the people who demanded a FULL and IMMEDIATE withdrawal to compromise somehow, didn't they?

Mercnbeth -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (5/4/2007 6:51:07 PM)
quote: The bill might be resubmitted without a surrender date. I doubt this will happen. Why should Congress give him what he wants? They can do nothing and he still ends up stuck. Are you as confident as you were when you gave the opinion that President Bush would have no choice but sign the bill with the surrender dates? They can do nothing - it is my expectation. They will be identified as the reason money for the troops wasn't allocated. As its been pointed out, the President had and has no funding power. Between all the pork spending and the failure to generate a clear funding bill; this Congress has done more to insure another Republican President than anything the Republicans could put forth as issues. The only potential offset, if the Democrats are lucky, would be for President Bush to push for amnesty for all those illegally in the country. That may balance the negative vote when appropriate blame for amnesty is placed on the GOP. Without the "win" last November, the chances of another Republican getting elected two Novembers from now would have been near zero. It's not the case now - based upon any poll. Who are "stuck" are the troops in the field. They are pawns for these political games .

farglebargle -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (5/4/2007 6:53:51 PM)
It LOOKS LIKE the House and Senate are getting ready to revoke Bush's authority to conduct operations under the AUMF.

Sinergy -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (5/4/2007 7:20:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: The bill might be resubmitted without a surrender date. I doubt this will happen. Why should Congress give him what he wants? They can do nothing and he still ends up stuck. Are you as confident as you were when you gave the opinion that President Bush would have no choice but sign the bill with the surrender dates? I said I believed he would sign it because failure to sign it would signal the end of the Republican party. He vetoed it, with the Republican party standing lockstep with him. I imagine as it continues to spiral out of control that the Republican's in Congress will be given walking papers next election. So yes, I stick by what I said. Thank you for asking. quote: They can do nothing - it is my expectation. They will be identified as the reason money for the troops wasn't allocated. As its been pointed out, the President had and has no funding power. Between all the pork spending and the failure to generate a clear funding bill; this Congress has done more to insure another Republican President than anything the Republicans could put forth as issues. The only potential offset, if the Democrats are lucky, would be for President Bush to push for amnesty for all those illegally in the country. That may balance the negative vote when appropriate blame for amnesty is placed on the GOP. Without the "win" last November, the chances of another Republican getting elected two Novembers from now would have been near zero. It's not the case now - based upon any poll. Good luck believing that. Bush does not have a strategy, nobody in his administration seems to have a clue how to fix the problem. Their strategy of lie, lie, lie, lie and when questioned deeply, change the subject, is no longer working. I was thinking about this today, Mercnbeth. The Republicans controlling Congress had how many years to get the Iraq thing right, 5? 6? and failed? Aren't you being a bit unreasonable demanding something happen in how many months? Lower your guns a bit, stop trashing the new power in Congress, and give the Democrats a year or 5 to overcome the learning curve. It seems only fair, the Republicans had at least that much time and failed to accomplish anything. Quite the opposite, if you think about it. If your response is "We need to do something now," I would point out a lot of people have been saying that for years while the Republicans did nothing. Regarding your "pawns" comment. It was not the Democrats who put them there. Place the blame on those who are deserving of it. At least the Democrats are trying to bring them home, despite the Republicans knee-jerk desire to throw good money after bad. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (5/4/2007 7:21:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle It LOOKS LIKE the House and Senate are getting ready to revoke Bush's authority to conduct operations under the AUMF. Keep your guns cleaned and loaded, I imagine AnencephalyBoy's next step will be to dissolve Congress and declare a state of emergency. Sinergy

mnottertail -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (5/4/2007 7:23:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth They can do nothing - it is my expectation. They will be identified as the reason money for the troops wasn't allocated. As its been pointed out, the President had and has no funding power. Between all the pork spending and the failure to generate a clear funding bill; this Congress has done more to insure another Republican President than anything the Republicans could put forth as issues. The only potential offset, if the Democrats are lucky, would be for President Bush to push for amnesty for all those illegally in the country. That may balance the negative vote when appropriate blame for amnesty is placed on the GOP. Without the "win" last November, the chances of another Republican getting elected two Novembers from now would have been near zero. It's not the case now - based upon any poll. Who are "stuck" are the troops in the field. They are pawns for these political games . The troops are all and always have been. you serve at the behest of your country, if that means going up a hill where you know you will be killed, that is the contract you signed with the government and that conctract regardless of any law is enforceable or you go to jail or die at the governments convinience. Neverthelees, I do not see any train of logic that leads to a republican government; additionally; I do not see any train of logic that leads to a democratic government--- what I do see, is that something has to be changed in the concept of the war on terrorism, and for that either in depth(which I doubt) or on some song and jingoe (which I will bet it hinges) that is where the die will be cast. Ron

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 [7]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125