Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
you are giving them way too much credit.
Charlie Rangel is one person... and the house is full of moderate dems now... it's a non-starter. There is a difference between political rhetoric and reality. Do you think for a second that Pelosi is going to be known as the speaker who let her Congress do something that would hurt the troops on the ground? She'll be out in two years if she were to permit it.
Actually, it's one thing I agree with Conley on. The Dems aren't going to risk the possible political ramifications with 2008 coming up. They're going to wheel and deal war funds to get some of their pet projects passed, and possibly establish some BS, bureacratic committee that they call "oversight this or that," but I highly doubt "cut and run" is a real viable option for them.
Arlen Specter is/was th chairman of the intelligence committee. In your eyes does he represent the sum of all Republican thinking? No. No one really "speaks" for either party, and Rangal certainly doesn't, especially with all the new moderate Democrats in the House. Rangal is talking the talk, but he won't walk the walk.Avatar4321 said:one person? He is the chairmen in charge of funding! you honestly dont think committee chairmen in charge of finances isnt speaking on behalf of the party?
Honestly, Im surprised Pelosi is still in. I know Murtha is aiming for her position.
My bet is that we'll see more oversight on contracting. Probably no more no-bid contracts to Halliburton and other companies(imagine, the government trying to get the best deal for its money). There will probably be a committee investigating the buildup to the Iraq War. It will have a couple of interviews, sit in obsurity for a few months, and issue a report that the media will notice for about a week.GunnyL said:Actually, it's one thing I agree with Conley on. The Dems aren't going to risk the possible political ramifications with 2008 coming up. They're going to wheel and deal war funds to get some of their pet projects passed, and possibly establish some BS, bureacratic committee that they call "oversight this or that," but I highly doubt "cut and run" is a real viable option for them.
Hmm... you're right. Looks like I just hit my 1st wikipedia lie. I fixed it though, here's the link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter
Minimum wage: Pass legislation to raise the minimum wage from the current $5.15 an hour to $7.25.
people if u work a min wage job u should be a college student.
they are fussing over this way too much, many states already have their min wage up so why do the dems keep fusssing?
Arlen Specter is/was th chairman of the intelligence committee. In your eyes does he represent the sum of all Republican thinking? No. No one really "speaks" for either party, and Rangal certainly doesn't, especially with all the new moderate Democrats in the House. Rangal is talking the talk, but he won't walk the walk.
My bet is that we'll see more oversight on contracting. Probably no more no-bid contracts to Halliburton and other companies(imagine, the government trying to get the best deal for its money). There will probably be a committee investigating the buildup to the Iraq War. It will have a couple of interviews, sit in obsurity for a few months, and issue a report that the media will notice for about a week.
Outside of funding, which they wouldn't dare touch, a couple of oversight committees and hearings, the Congress doesn't really have all that much authority. The Democrats will push for some more accountability, which is good. In many ways I think we have an ideal situation. Bush and the Democrats are going to have to compromise on Iraq. That means no more "staying the course" (like that's gotten us anywhere) but no "immediate withdrawal" and at best a mid-term (2-5 year) phased withdrawal. I don't like timelines for war; I prefer goals, but whatever comes out will be better than the current plan (or lack thereof).More importantly, it'll hopefully result in Bush changing tactics in Iraq, which is now the only shot we have.
Sounds like you listen to too many 15 second news tidbits that are meaningless and meant to capture the attention of idiot adults with the attention span of 13 year old video junkie kids.
"stay the course" didnt in any way shape or form mean to continue doing what was being done. As the generals in Iraq CONTINUOUSLY said, we have been adjusting our tactics as the terrorists have been changing theirs also. The GOAL has always been, kick out saddam, get a new govt. and then allow Iraq to train security forces well enough so we can leave. THATS what STAY THE COURSE means. You got a problem with that goal?
And your sig says the same thing, reading Time or Newsweek for your information is like asking a criminal what he thinks of cops, you wont get anything but a distorted view of reality. Uh, dude, since when is pedophilia including 19 year olds? Yea, but just keep on repeating the lie.....
which all means your opinion on what is going to happen isnt worth the toilet paper I already used to wipe my ass with.
