Senate Defies Veto Threat

[maineman]

And I thought the banter between Maineman and RSR was bad. You guys are down right mean.

Anywho. For all you troop supporters I ask that you start thinking conservatively and thus realistically. There is absolutely no reason to think that the factions over there are ever going to get along. There is nothing to 'win'. I believe the war on terror is one that should be taken directly to the terrorists, but Iraq has little to do with that. This is a problem the administration created due in large part to lack of forsight. I can only thank certain members of this board for helping me see that (you know who you are).

There is no way to get out this with our hands clean, even if the dems get their way, we will still be leaving behind a qaugmire of our own creation.

the way you have come to this conclusion is an admirable path that others would do well to follow.

 

[Gunny]

\


"high crimes and misdemeanors" is a very vague standard, as we have so recently witnessed.


Remember: it ain't unconstitutional until the supremes say it is!

I want you to take off your partisan hat and think about this:

The precedent set by Articles of Impeachment being presented against a President for vetoing legislation.

Congress hasn't an dcan't accomplish a damned thing besides vote themselves pay raises and vote me tax raises, and make partisan attacks against each other. Yet you would sit and watch that body of ineffectual losers usurp the power of the executive branch for no more than [artisan politics?

Can't say as I will. I thought trying to impeach Clinton on grounds of partsianship was wrong, and I think trying to impeach Bush for the same reason is wrong.

Neither case, past or future, takes into consideration long-term consequences to this nation. It's all about one-upping the other party RIGHT NOW and the future be damned.

 

[maineman]

there may be wisdom in what you say.... but neither party can afford to admit that, and act accordingly for fear that the other party would NOT, and gain an insurmountable advantage.


so...practically speaking, if the republicans now say that this partisan sniping is bad for the country, democrats will say they should have considered that before they impeached Clinton.

 

[Gunny]

there may be wisdom in what you say.... but neither party can afford to admit that, and act accordingly for fear that the other party would NOT, and gain an insurmountable advantage.


so...practically speaking, if the republicans now say that this partisan sniping is bad for the country, democrats will say they should have considered that before they impeached Clinton.

I said it then. That it was going to backfire, and not accomplish anything. I'll say the same now. If the Dems do it, it's going to backfire on them, and they won't accomplish a thing.

It is the President's right to veto legislation he disagrees with. If Congress as a body feels so strongly about its cause, its recourse is to override the veto. Not trump up some BS articles of impeachment.

And I agree .... extremists drive the train and neither side is going to back down from its rhetoric. More and more, I'm starting to agree with those who believe this will eventually lead to bloodshed before it's over.

I'd as soon hang the lot of them (our government)to avoid the implosion of this nation. It isn't like they are anything more than a mockery of what they are supposed to be according to the Constitution.

 

[T-Bor]

I said it then. That it was going to backfire, and not accomplish anything. I'll say the same now. If the Dems do it, it's going to backfire on them, and they won't accomplish a thing.

It is the President's right to veto legislation he disagrees with. If Congress as a body feels so strongly about its cause, its recourse is to override the veto. Not trump up some BS articles of impeachment.

And I agree .... extremists drive the train and neither side is going to back down from its rhetoric. More and more, I'm starting to agree with those who believe this will eventually lead to bloodshed before it's over.

I'd as soon hang the lot of them (our government)to avoid the implosion of this nation. It isn't like they are anything more than a mockery of what they are supposed to be according to the Constitution.

 

[T-Bor]

Double

I want you to take off your partisan hat and think about this:

The precedent set by Articles of Impeachment being presented against a President for vetoing legislation.

Congress hasn't an dcan't accomplish a damned thing besides vote themselves pay raises and vote me tax raises, and make partisan attacks against each other. Yet you would sit and watch that body of ineffectual losers usurp the power of the executive branch for no more than [artisan politics?

Can't say as I will. I thought trying to impeach Clinton on grounds of partsianship was wrong, and I think trying to impeach Bush for the same reason is wrong.

Neither case, past or future, takes into consideration long-term consequences to this nation. It's all about one-upping the other party RIGHT NOW and the future be damned.

 

[jasendorf]

It's rather transparent when someone joins a board and immediately starts attacking one of the longtime members.

Just sayin'.

She's in every thread sounding stupid... that's the only thing transparent here. She's brought this on herself... there's no**vast left-wing conspiracy** here.

 

[boedicca]

I don't recall her saying that this board was controlled by a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy - if anything, she has pointed out that there is quite a variety among the membership.

 

[jasendorf]

The President has to veto this bill. its unconstitutional.

The Democrats have demonstrated that pork is more important than the lives of the troops and winning the war.

Please cite the portion of the Constitution you believe this bill offends.

And, I know you want a Kingdom where the King decides matters of law... but if it's unconstitutional isn't that the job of the Supreme Court to determine whether it is? Since when did the President get the Constitutional charge to determine if laws are unconstitutional? He has one role here. Sign or don't sign. He does not have the Constitutional decision to fund or defund the military... that's the Congress' Constitutional charge.

Why won't President Bush approve $100 billion for our fighting warriors in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[jasendorf]

I don't recall her saying that this board was controlled by a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy - if anything, she has pointed out that there is quite a variety among the membership.

I was referring to your "transparent" comment above... what's transparent... please dish...

 

[boedicca]

I was referring to your "transparent" comment above... what's transparent... please dish...

The fact that a very new member immediately zeroes in on Kathianne and insults her. It indicates a pre-existing acquaintance, at a minimum.

 

[Shogun]

Lordy.. I hope you don't vote with the same brain that you used to sherlock holmes yourself some big liberal conspiracy there, buddy.....


"pre-existing acquaintance, at a minimum."

say, when a new person signs up to this board and spends half of the time scrolling past pages upon pages of ad hominem crap from the same "long time member"... how long does it take you to ponder why my IP doesn't match who you seem to think I am?



what a SLEUTH, lemme tellya.


someone give this chap a lisence to kill.. I think we've just met our American James Bond.

 

[jasendorf]

The fact that a very new member immediately zeroes in on Kathianne and insults her. It indicates a pre-existing acquaintance, at a minimum.

OK, I took it to mean you thought people were recruiting other people to come here and insult her hence the conspiracy theory.

But, really, she posts so much tripe that I don't find it hard to believe that someone who doesn't know her wouldn't see her as a target for ridicule almost immediately upon joining.

 

[boedicca]

Lordy.. I hope you don't vote with the same brain that you used to sherlock holmes yourself some big liberal conspiracy there, buddy.....


"pre-existing acquaintance, at a minimum."

say, when a new person signs up to this board and spends half of the time scrolling past pages upon pages of ad hominem crap from the same "long time member"... how long does it take you to ponder why my IP doesn't match who you seem to think I am?



what a SLEUTH, lemme tellya.


someone give this chap a lisence to kill.. I think we've just met our American James Bond.

One person is not a conspiracy. But thanks for playing.

 

[Shogun]

which kinda blows your grand theory out of the water, eh?


ahh well.... Sherlock Holmes already has a sideick anyway.

 

[boedicca]

All I said was that it is very transparent when a noob joins a site and starts attacking a long time member.

If the Foo Shits, bub...your defensiveness is a dead giveaway.

 

[Shogun]

would you like to elaborate what, exactly, is so transparent when a new user makes a comment about the ad hominem domination of one of your good ole boys?


I bet sticking to one liner jabs from behind a cloud of ambiguity makes the ann coulter types quiver at the knees but....

by all means.. tell us all what you think has been given away..





I doubt that youll find what you think is at the end of this golden brick road, dorothy.....

 

[Edward]

do edward or his ilk think they bother me? Grow a pair. Whoops, roomy already suggested such, but acknowledge it's impossible. Trolls.

You have some serious issues but I really don't give a damn what some crazy person who trolls this message board has to say so keep talking the usual garbage you talk because the only people listening and believing your crap are probably as crazy as you are.

 

[Edward]

It's rather transparent when someone joins a board and immediately starts attacking one of the longtime members.

Just sayin'.

I have been a member of this board almost as long as Kathianne except I am not a crazy troll who visits here every day and post 30,000 plus posts like crazy trolls tend to do. I have been a member of this board since April of 2005.

 

[Gunny]

Shogun, alot of people have negative reps but they dont get respect which is unfair, alot of people have a ridiculess about of rep and get all the respect which is unfair. Sometimes the best way to be heard has nothing to do with rep points, they dont buy anything. But if you Start a thread with your own opinions and positions on certain issues, you may start getting respect and even rep points from those that disagree with you for at least putting your ideas out there, if not.....well then i guess your just not striking a chord on the piano of semi-intellectual debate. At least I, like to consider this an intellectual community sometimes. At the least, a classy community.

Some of us earned our rep over a period of YEARS vs hours. We ALL started out with 10 points. If you want rep, you have to earn it. Simple as that. If you aren't getting any, perhaps it's YOU? I've repped most of the liberals on this board at one time or another.

I respect a good argument. I don't respect parroting party talking points.