DaVinci 0
Recommended Posts
billvon 3,063
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>But instead of being honest, you throw a red herring into the mix . . .
Yep. Just like throwing Clinton into a discussion about whether or not to continue a war. But hey, if you have nothing left to say, Clinton is a tried-and-true strawman. Arguably better than Nixon; no one remembers him. So I'll give you the win on "best red herring" here.
Yep. Just like throwing Clinton into a discussion about whether or not to continue a war. But hey, if you have nothing left to say, Clinton is a tried-and-true strawman. Arguably better than Nixon; no one remembers him. So I'll give you the win on "best red herring" here.
The outcome of the "war" in Iraq was a given. Tough (fear driven) times allow criminals to stay in office, look at history...Bush jumped at the chance to play out all his resentment-power fantasies on Sadaam, at a time when our country was at its most vulnerable and when his popularity was waning...shame on him. He should be impeached and tried for committing crimes against humanity...theirs (Iraqi citizens) and the US (soldiers and families). I am in total disbelief as to the ignorance and overwhelming brainwash that has occurred on the minds of the American people. It is sad, no its tragic! "The emperor wears no clothes"...a quote that came from the voice of a child in the original fairy tale story... a child too innocent to accept an obvious lie.
DaVinci 0
Quote>But instead of being honest, you throw a red herring into the mix . . .
Yep. Just like throwing Clinton into a discussion about whether or not to continue a war
It is called a COMPARISON. You should know that. See you claim that in one case where Congress attaches something to a bill and when one President vetos it it is fine, but whan another does it it makes him evil.
You can't have it both ways.
I'll make it easy for you.
1. Reb Congress attaches tax cuts for small business. Clinton Vetos it.
2. Dem Congress attaches troop withdraws to a military funding bill.
Both are the SAME in BOTH the President didn't agree with the attachments. But on one you claim that if Bush vetos it he does not care about the troops...But you refuse to say the same about Clinton. That is just you playing politics.
And again you just avoid answering the question.
As well can IranQuoteI was floored by his remarks. I can't believe he let that come out of his mouth.
On CNN right now; The King Of Saudi-Arabia is calling our presence in Iraq unauthorized. He also canceled the meeting with GWB next month. I can speak from personal experience, Saudi-Arabia can make our lives a living hell.
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.
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
rehmwa 2
QuoteBoth are the SAME in BOTH the Presidents didn't agree with the attachments. But on one you claim that if XXXXX vetos it he does not care about the ZZZZZZ...But you refuse to say the same about YYYYYY. That is just you playing politics.
that's exactly how the game is played - surprised?
it's a total waste of time
...
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
DaVinci 0
Quotethat's exactly how the game is played - surprised?
it's a total waste of time
Not surprised at *them* surprised at Bill for buying into it and perpetuating it.
billvon 3,063
>See you claim that in one case where Congress attaches something
>to a bill and when one President vetos it it is fine, but whan another does
>it it makes him evil.
Uh, no. You're making shit up again. I never claimed that anything Clinton did was fine, nor is he an example anyone should use of the "right" way to do something. Your hatred of him makes you too eager to use him as a scapegoat.
Bush has passed supplementals with lots of pork attached to them before. I gave a few examples. So the claim that "Bush should veto this bill because it has pork" is hypocritical - UNLESS you also claim he should have vetoed every other supplemental bill given to him. Do you claim that?
And this time see if you can answer without using the name "Clinton."
>to a bill and when one President vetos it it is fine, but whan another does
>it it makes him evil.
Uh, no. You're making shit up again. I never claimed that anything Clinton did was fine, nor is he an example anyone should use of the "right" way to do something. Your hatred of him makes you too eager to use him as a scapegoat.
Bush has passed supplementals with lots of pork attached to them before. I gave a few examples. So the claim that "Bush should veto this bill because it has pork" is hypocritical - UNLESS you also claim he should have vetoed every other supplemental bill given to him. Do you claim that?
And this time see if you can answer without using the name "Clinton."
DaVinci 0
QuoteUh, no. You're making shit up again. I never claimed that anything Clinton did was fine, nor is he an example anyone should use of the "right" way to do something. Your hatred of him makes you too eager to use him as a scapegoat.
No you just made a statement then avoided answering a question that was a comparison. Your hatred of Bush is showing. It is removing your normally good critical thinking skills.
QuoteBush has passed supplementals with lots of pork attached to them before. I gave a few examples. So the claim that "Bush should veto this bill because it has pork" is hypocritical - UNLESS you also claim he should have vetoed every other supplemental bill given to him. Do you claim that?
Nope and if you bother to read what I wrote you would see the reason I gave for why he would veto it was to due to him thinking a withdraw is the wrong course of action.
But YOU stated "They finally passed it. If he vetoes the troop-funding bill, the American people will indeed know who to hold responsible."
And I said that Congress would be responsible since they added pork to the military spending bill that they KNEW he would veto since he TOLD them.
So you can continue to make BS claims. But they passed a bill they knew he would veto just so they, and you it seems, could claim he does not care about the troops.
I for one am amazed you are buying into it.
dorbie 0
Quote
I for one am amazed you are buying into it.
He's not buying into it, it's just the usual bullshit posturing of American politics.
Everyone knows there's no line-item veto. Everyone knows that congress has attached a major rider to the budget setting a deadline for troop withdrawal.
Bush has no obligation to accept this and congress cannot force the issue without a greater majority.
So despite everyone knowing exactly what's going on you get these vapid arguments and phoney posturing over absolute bullshit. There's no acceptabe budget on the table, it's been politically hamstrung by the withdrawal rider.
Now we get to watch the pantomime play out. The only question most of these D.C. assholes care about is who will come out of the shitstorm smelling the sweetest.
funjumper101 15
QuoteQuote
I for one am amazed you are buying into it.
He's not buying into it, it's just the usual bullshit posturing of American politics.
Everyone knows there's no line-item veto. Everyone knows that congress has attached a major rider to the budget setting a deadline for troop withdrawal.
Bush has no obligation to accept this and congress cannot force the issue without a greater majority.
So despite everyone knowing exactly what's going on you get these vapid arguments and phoney posturing over absolute bullshit. There's no acceptabe budget on the table, it's been politically hamstrung by the withdrawal rider.
Now we get to watch the pantomime play out. The only question most of these D.C. assholes care about is who will come out of the shitstorm smelling the sweetest.
Politics is a filthy business. In 12 years, the Repubs made the business much nastier than it had ever been before. They changed the rules so as to grind down the Dems. The sheeple went along with it for quite a while. Now that the sheeple can't ignore the disgusting reality that is the current Republican administration, the sheeple voted in the opposition party, in spite of the Repubs best efforts.
The Dems are playing by the new rules, as established by the Repubs. Their excesses are coming back to bite them in the ass. It is fun to watch.
Righties, how do you explain that the polls are well over 50%, mostly in the 70-80% range, for getting the hell out of Iraq?
Why does it surprise you that Congress is doing what it supposed to do? We, the people, want the troops out of Iraq. ShrubCo isn't listening to us.
In case you have forgotten, Congress is supposed to rein in the Executive branch, according to the will of the people. It is called "checks and balances". It is part of how the government is supposed to operate. If you started paying attention to politics in the past 5-7 years, you haven't really seen the process in action. The Republican Congress did zero oversight of ShrubCo, and the USA is paying the price. We will be for generations.
rehmwa 2
QuoteIn 12 years, the Repubs made the business much nastier than it had ever been before.
ahhh, the 'they did it first' gambit
nice, never seen that one before - I don't see any particular party even close to pulling out in front on the muck slinging tactics, it's been neck and neck on that front for, I'd guess, about 240 years
...
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
billvon 3,063
>But YOU stated "They finally passed it. If he vetoes the troop-funding bill,
>the American people will indeed know who to hold responsible."
He will be responsible for vetoing it. I know, this is the age where no one is responsible for anything, but not even the blindest Bush-lover could claim that he isn't the one vetoing money for the troops. He is the one responsible for his actions.
>And I said that Congress would be responsible since they added pork to
>the military spending bill that they KNEW he would veto since he TOLD
>them.
And again - he was OK with pork before. To not be OK with pork now is hypocritical.
Of course, Bush has always been OK with pork in the past. Most intelligent people realize that he cannot stomach any sort of deadline; that is why he is vetoing it. I think you would realize this if you read something other than Newsmax.
As I have said before, there is a new bill being proposed in case this one is vetoed, one that funds everything he asks for, one with much less pork - but that still contains a target date. Think he will veto that one too? If he does, then it will be even clearer who is depriving US troops of funding for political reasons, and will underscore that it's not the pork he's having trouble with.
>the American people will indeed know who to hold responsible."
He will be responsible for vetoing it. I know, this is the age where no one is responsible for anything, but not even the blindest Bush-lover could claim that he isn't the one vetoing money for the troops. He is the one responsible for his actions.
>And I said that Congress would be responsible since they added pork to
>the military spending bill that they KNEW he would veto since he TOLD
>them.
And again - he was OK with pork before. To not be OK with pork now is hypocritical.
Of course, Bush has always been OK with pork in the past. Most intelligent people realize that he cannot stomach any sort of deadline; that is why he is vetoing it. I think you would realize this if you read something other than Newsmax.
As I have said before, there is a new bill being proposed in case this one is vetoed, one that funds everything he asks for, one with much less pork - but that still contains a target date. Think he will veto that one too? If he does, then it will be even clearer who is depriving US troops of funding for political reasons, and will underscore that it's not the pork he's having trouble with.
rehmwa 2
Quote>nd will underscore that it's not the pork he's having trouble with.
exactly, it'll be clear it's the target date he has an issue with
not that the left will spin it as he's depriving funds to the troops
nor that the right will spin it as the target date is completely unpalatable
the end, both congress and Bush will fail to find a consensus that allows the troops to get the funding
Congress will be responsible for knowingly issuing a bill they know will be vetoed
the Pres will be responsible for vetoing it instead of finding a way to work with the very touchy content item
It's still hard to see how all you people make it a one side only issue. (It's not that hard, just silly and process naive)
...
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
billvon 3,063
>It's still hard to see how all you people make it a one side only issue.
I think it's a very two sided issue.
Right now, as you mention, the issue is the target date. The pork is a smokescreen. I am hoping that the funding bill is re-issued with less pork and more explicit funding of troops even after the deadline passes (as is currently proposed.) That way it will be much more difficult to maintain the "pork" smokescreen.
It is clear that the US (both the voting population and the population as a whole) wants us out of Iraq within a certain timeframe. Congress is now issuing funding bills that take that desire into account. This is one way democracy works - representatives take actions that result in their being re-elected, thus representing the will of the people.
If they issue a funding bill with a deadline, they are doing their jobs and representing their constituents. Those constituents may well be wrong by certain standards, but in a democracy that's not an issue - the people make the decisions indirectly through their representatives.
Bush will then decide how that happens.
If he vetoes the funding bill, then the troops will have to make a somewhat hasty retreat as their funding is cut off rapidly. Since their commanders are not idiots, I would expect them to exit Iraq before lack of financial support becomes dangerous to them.
If he passes the funding bill, then the troops will remain there and funded, and he and congress will begin to bicker over the meaning of the language in the bill. He will then have two choices:
1) Do another half-dozen emergency appropriations bills
2) Get the money into the federal budget so that no one has to haggle over emergency appropriations. Had he done this originally he would not now be in this position.
Congress may well be making a tactical mistake by insisting on a timetable - but they pass the laws and set the policy in this country. And whether good or not, at the last election, the pro-war camp was voted out. We are now seeing the results of that decision by the voters.
So it is quite two-sided - congress vs. the president. It is NOT about pork, it's about whether or not to continue funding the war. And both sides have their decisions to make, and both will be held accountable. In a very real way, the previous congress has _already_ been held accountable for their decisions, and this congress realizes that. The president does not care about being held accountable, because he will not be re-elected.
I think it's a very two sided issue.
Right now, as you mention, the issue is the target date. The pork is a smokescreen. I am hoping that the funding bill is re-issued with less pork and more explicit funding of troops even after the deadline passes (as is currently proposed.) That way it will be much more difficult to maintain the "pork" smokescreen.
It is clear that the US (both the voting population and the population as a whole) wants us out of Iraq within a certain timeframe. Congress is now issuing funding bills that take that desire into account. This is one way democracy works - representatives take actions that result in their being re-elected, thus representing the will of the people.
If they issue a funding bill with a deadline, they are doing their jobs and representing their constituents. Those constituents may well be wrong by certain standards, but in a democracy that's not an issue - the people make the decisions indirectly through their representatives.
Bush will then decide how that happens.
If he vetoes the funding bill, then the troops will have to make a somewhat hasty retreat as their funding is cut off rapidly. Since their commanders are not idiots, I would expect them to exit Iraq before lack of financial support becomes dangerous to them.
If he passes the funding bill, then the troops will remain there and funded, and he and congress will begin to bicker over the meaning of the language in the bill. He will then have two choices:
1) Do another half-dozen emergency appropriations bills
2) Get the money into the federal budget so that no one has to haggle over emergency appropriations. Had he done this originally he would not now be in this position.
Congress may well be making a tactical mistake by insisting on a timetable - but they pass the laws and set the policy in this country. And whether good or not, at the last election, the pro-war camp was voted out. We are now seeing the results of that decision by the voters.
So it is quite two-sided - congress vs. the president. It is NOT about pork, it's about whether or not to continue funding the war. And both sides have their decisions to make, and both will be held accountable. In a very real way, the previous congress has _already_ been held accountable for their decisions, and this congress realizes that. The president does not care about being held accountable, because he will not be re-elected.
rehmwa 2
I delete about 3 sentences from that and I'm good with it. Much more objective writeup.
...
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
...
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
DaVinci 0
QuoteOf course, Bush has always been OK with pork in the past. Most intelligent people realize that he cannot stomach any sort of deadline; that is why he is vetoing it. I think you would realize this if you read something other than Newsmax
Funny I have never read anything from news max...But nice to know you claim to know everything.
QuoteAs I have said before, there is a new bill being proposed in case this one is vetoed, one that funds everything he asks for, one with much less pork - but that still contains a target date. Think he will veto that one too? If he does, then it will be even clearer who is depriving US troops of funding for political reasons
It will be clear the Congress will not fund the troops unless they get what they want. It will be clear that Bush thinks that timelines are a bad idea.
Thats all. BOTH will be responsible. But please don't sit on your high horse and claim that the failure of this bill is only Bush's fault. If the dems really cared about supporting the troops they would give the money and then if they really wanted a timeline they could pass a seperate bill Bush could veto.
Your lame attack trying to claim Bush does not support the troops is a shame, and frankly I expected better than that from you.
billvon 3,063
>Thats all. BOTH will be responsible. But please don't sit on your high
>horse and claim that the failure of this bill is only Bush's fault.
The veto of this particular bill IS Bush's sole responsibility. Claiming that Congress "made him do it" is akin to claiming that society made a criminal commit a crime. There may indeed be things that society did that led him to consider the crime, but in the end, the person who performs an action is responsible for it.
In the long run, Congress will be responsible for the eventual end of funding for the war. (Same way the Vietnam war was ended BTW.) Bush will have a choice - veto any funding they pass, or sign one of the funding bills they pass. His choice. If he chooses to veto it, he will be responsible for the IMMEDIATE end of funding.
>horse and claim that the failure of this bill is only Bush's fault.
The veto of this particular bill IS Bush's sole responsibility. Claiming that Congress "made him do it" is akin to claiming that society made a criminal commit a crime. There may indeed be things that society did that led him to consider the crime, but in the end, the person who performs an action is responsible for it.
In the long run, Congress will be responsible for the eventual end of funding for the war. (Same way the Vietnam war was ended BTW.) Bush will have a choice - veto any funding they pass, or sign one of the funding bills they pass. His choice. If he chooses to veto it, he will be responsible for the IMMEDIATE end of funding.
Lame Bill, lame.
You claim that if Bush Vetos this bill due to the withdraw dates he shows his lack of support for the troops. Then the same thing must be said for Clinton and his lack of support for people on min wage since he vetoed that bill since it contained extra shit he didnt like.
But instead of being honest, you throw a red herring into the mix...How about you actually answer the question?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites