Democrats: Imploding?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by M14 Shooter, Dec 13, 2007.

  1. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,100
    Thanks Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,480
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/12/AR2007121202837_pf.html

    But, here's a real gem:

    Now, imagine what all you Dems/Liberals would have said if the GOP had done this when they were in the majority. Be honest: you'd hit the roof, whine, cry, scream about an 'abuse of power' and any number of things like that.


    If the Dems/liberals have such a 'mandate' to do all the things they said they would do in their campaigns, why haven't they done any of it?
     
  2. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
    I would never have a problem with forcing actual debate in a filibuster.

    I was outraged when Frist and Co. were trying to rewrite the Senate rules to eliminate filibusters....and I bet that the republicans are now breathing a sigh of relief that THAT didn't happen!
     
  3. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,100
    Thanks Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,480
    But wait!! There's more!!

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TGOEMG0&show_article=1

    Nancy:
    As speaker, you, personally, have the power to end the war right now.
    If you are SO confident in your assessment of the ‘voice’ of the American people, why don’t you do it?
     
  4. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,527
    Thanks Received:
    4,850
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,362
    Pelosi doesn't give a horse's fucking NUTSACK what the people want. Neither does Harry Reid, Steny Hoyer, John Conyers, or Charlie Rangel.

    If congress cared what the PEOPLE wanted, there'd be WAY MORE transparency into criminal investigations of the executive branch, and impeachment proceedings would not be 'off the table'...as if any ONE PERSON EVER has any constitutional authority to do that in the first place.

    Pelosi's and Conyers' office gets flooded with emails and calls on a daily basis requesting this, and the people get NOTHING. Conyers actually told Cindy Sheehan a few months ago that if he were to pursue impeachment any further, Fox news would paint him as being "partisan".

    Why do you still have faith in the 2 party system? The US government is not a football game. It's not "pick a side". It's about the COUNTRY, not just what you particularly want for your OWN personal content.
     
  5. CrpRavens30
    Offline

    CrpRavens30 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Messages:
    85
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    Ratings:
    +6
    WOW.. I see your way out there.. :eusa_doh:
     
  6. JimH52
    Offline

    JimH52 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    19,227
    Thanks Received:
    3,090
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    US
    Ratings:
    +8,199
    No, Congress controlls the funding, not the war. It would be political suicide to cut funding on troops in the field. Perlosi is expressing her disdain at the GOP congress and their continuing to follow like sheep the guy some call president.

    Be assured that the republicans will pay dearly again in 2008. If a greater democratic majority is needed to overcome GOP blocking, I think they will get it.
     
  7. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Not a chance that either party will get majority of both houses in sufficient numbers to override blocks. Just wishful thinking on your part. Bet you're one of those that believe conservative dissatsifaction with Republicans causing them to stay home in 2006 and not put their own back into office giving the Dem's default victories was a "mandate" too, huh?

    Either party being in complete control of the government with no checks ro balances would be an absolute disaster for this nation. Oh, sorry ... I forgot ... you political hacks put your politics first. Forgot my audience for a second there.
     
  8. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    I never think it's a good idea for one party to control all.... but I do think it's important from a governmental gridlock perspective to get override power (of course, that's only by *my* folks). ;o)

    It's clear right now that the Repubs are being obstructionist and that Bush is going to veto any initiative that doesn't suit him. Hence, there still, effectively, being one party control. I've had enough of that after the last seven years. And, say what you want about Bill Clinton, he didn't wield his veto the same way. There were many areas in which agreement was found.
     
  9. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    I will say what I want. :cool: Clinton authorized himself the line-item veto and cherry-picked what he wanted to sign. So no, he didn't veto whole packages, he just bled red ink all over them until they said what he wanted.

    And ummm ... as far as who has been obstructionist, the first 6 of those 7 years it was YOUR folks that were the obstructionists.

    No party should have override power. That is BEYOND dangerous.
     
  10. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    Every president wants the line-item veto. The Court, rightfully, said no.

    If the dems were so obstructionist, why did Bush and his merry band get everything they wanted while we got shell-shocked?

    What's dangerous is the president holding Congress hostage with his veto pen.
     

Share This Page