Senate Defies Veto Threat

[jasendorf]

This current Congress does not represent the will of the people. It represents shot-sighted Republicans/conservatives thinking they were going to teach Republicans a lesson, and cutting off their noses to spite their faces. This current crop just fell in through the back door as a result.

The will of the American people is not and has not been to cut and run from Iraq. You lefties have taken dissatisfaction with how the war is being conducted and twisted it into that. It's about as real as your crap about the current Congress representing the will of the people.

This is the funniest thing I've read in days.

Anyone remember the 2004election? All the Republiblogotalkers cried out how there was a "MANDATE for war!!!111oneoneeleven"

Now, the voters were just stupid in 2006...

 

[boedicca]

So the Bush Administration is incapable of knowing whether we'll be at war next year... and have been lying to us when they say they know we'll be at it for a long time?

That is not what I said (but thank you for the additional - though unnecessary proof - of your reading comprehension issue. The BA has been dealing with a hyperadversarial opposition since the beginning of the war which makes any negotiation for long term funding impossible. One cannot negotiate with people who are not acting in good faith. Hence, the repetitive emergency approrprations.

Here's an option. Ask for what they think they'll need and if they need more, ask for it in an emergency bill... if they need less, don't spend it all. But, asking for ALL these wars' funds in an emergency bill either says, 1) we have no idea about what is going on in Iraq or 2) we want to hide these wars' funding to play games with the federal budget.

It won't work for the reason I mentioned above.

 

[Edward]

That is not what I said (but thank you for the additional - though unnecessary proof - of your reading comprehension issue.

Are you a complete idiot? He didn't say you said it you moronic ass. It seems that it is you who has the reading comprehension issue.

The BA has been dealing with a hyperadversarial opposition since the beginning of the war which makes any negotiation for long term funding impossible.

And therein lies the problem with you retards. The President doesn't negotiate the budget with Congress but merely submits his recommendation and request for funds just like the Judiciary recommends and requests funds from the U.S. Congress. The President has no more control over the Executive Budget than the Supreme Court has over the Judicial budget. Congress may adopt all or part of these budget requests or reject them and adopt a budget that they think appropriate.

One cannot negotiate with people who are not acting in good faith. Hence, the repetitive emergency approrprations.

You are an imbecile. The President doesn't get to negotiate the budget and either accepts the budget as it is approved by Congress or he can go fly a kite. All that these emergency appropriations are is the President and the Executive trying to pull one on Congress and if the budget process is adversarial it is the President's fault for making it adversarial as Congress simply is performing its constitutional responsibilities while the President is trying to impede them. If the Judiciary were to attempt the same kind of stunts that Bush has than they would be quickly put in check by the Congress.

It won't work for the reason I mentioned above.

If Bush simply told the Congress the truth, and gave them the information they needed to adopt THEIR budget for the Executive Departments and Agencies than there wouldn't be a need for emergency appropriations. This is also true of the Judiciary and legislative agencies. They don't seem to have a problem with making appropriations requests to the Congress. Maybe it is just Georgie and his wife Laurie who have trouble with this because they are busy playing poker. The President has sought to make the appropriations process adversarial and the blame rests with him alone. You don't see the Supreme Court, the Circuit or District Courts making unnecessary emergency funding requests. You also don't see the legislative agencies doing so. Instead you see Georgie having a problem doing so.

 

[Gunny]

Why do you feel the Constitution is bullshit? The Congress is specifically charged with the purse strings. You don't have to like it... but that's what the Constitution explicitly states.

And, they're not using the military budget. The President conveniently "forgot" that there are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when he requested funding for the military budget; hence, the need for "emergency" funding. Emergency funding does not equal budget.

They're taking that request for funding and adding there own bullshit agenda to it. THAT is bullshit.

 

[Gunny]

This is the funniest thing I've read in days.

Anyone remember the 2004election? All the Republiblogotalkers cried out how there was a "MANDATE for war!!!111oneoneeleven"

Now, the voters were just stupid in 2006...

Not what I said, is it? Don't twist my words.

I specifically stated Republican/conservative voters who abstained from voting. It was, IIRC, you lefties that called anyone who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 stupid. Don't try to share the blame with me for your all-inclusive comments.

 

[Gunny]

Dream on moron because it is apparent that your only argument is that others respond with insults. I don't give a shit enough about your or your retarded ass to care that you take what I say as an insult as everything you have said is insulting you stupid ass motherfucker. You have not even made a serious attempt to even quote the Constitution, the Founding Fathers or any reliable source and you say you have shot my "closed-minded shit full of holes." Only in your dreams. If you have something to say other than, "debate as I want you to debate and play by my rules or I won't condescend to your level" than you can fuck off and take that as an insult you stupid ass bitch and then you can go vote for your retarded ass or the retarded ass who agrees with you because it is obvious you have not even attempted to debate and the only fucking reason I insult others is to fucking mess with the minds of stupid ass trolls who jump at the chance of attacking others for insults instead of having a serious debate and it is obvious that it worked you fucking moron.



When and if you are ready to respond with something other than, "I am right and you are wrong" and "you are insulting me" than we might have something to discuss bitch. Oops, there I go with insulting the motherfucker who has done nothing but insult me.

 

[Annie]

This is the funniest thing I've read in days.

Anyone remember the 2004election? All the Republiblogotalkers cried out how there was a "MANDATE for war!!!111oneoneeleven"

Now, the voters were just stupid in 2006...

Yeah, some of us do:

http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=12770&highlight=2004+mandate

 

[Edward]

They're taking that request for funding and adding there own bullshit agenda to it. THAT is bullshit.

Bullshit. The source of the funding is the Congress and not the President. The members of Congress could simply ignore the request, take it as is or amend the request as they see fit prior to adopting additional appropriations or for that matter reject the request entirely and decide to sponsor an emergency appropriation bill that has none of the recommendations of the President.

Let me break it down for you moron. The United States Congress is offering the President additional appropriations in addition to offering other emergency appropriations as they see fit. The source of this legislation does not originate with the President and therefore Congress didn't add anything to it you stupid ass moron. From start to finish this appropriation bill was being discussed, and it was determined what should be contained in it and it JUST SO HAPPENED THAT THEY DECIDED TO INCLUDE THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST AS WELL AS OTHER REQUESTS, AND IF THEY HAD DECIDED NOT TO INCLUDE THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST IT WOULD STILL BE AN EMERGENCY APPROPRIATION BILL ASSHOLE.

Congress wasn't simply considering the President's request but also decided to consider other requests for emergency appropriations by other members of Congress, including the Congressman who made the request in behalf of the President. You have it half ass backwards and you assume that Congress added something to the emergency appropriations bill in addition to that of the President's request when in reality they added the President's request to THEIR EMERGENCY APPROPRIATION BILL.

 

[red states rule]

In the last election, Dems made several promises to the American people to get their vote. Dems promised they would not cut and run from Iraq, they would stand up to terrorists, they would end pork, they would run the most ethical Congress ever, and they would not raise taxes

Well they are 0 for 5 and keep the books open

Dems passed their "Surrender At All Cost Bill", telling the terrorists the exact date the troops will leave Iraq, they packed it with such vital military spending like millions for peanut storage, shrimp and spinach farmers, and effectively handing Iraq over to the terrorists.

I guess this the libs way of standing up to terrorists - give them what they want and hope they will not try and kill us later.

In keeping with on the basic foundations of liberalism, Dems want to pass the largest tax increase in the history of the US. In the Dems new budget, they are proposing new taxes totaling near $400 billion over five years

Dems want to increase marginal rate, reduce child tax credits, increase the marriage penalty, the death tax and capital gains taxes. Yes Dem do not discriminate - they want to take more of everyones money.
Dems said they would "drain the swamp" of corruption and yet a little reported story about Sen Feinstein having to step down as head the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee after reports linked her votes to her husband's companies, which received billions in military construction contracts she approved.

I wonder how Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will handle this ethics issue. Like the liberal media, they will ignore it and try to sweep it under the rug

 

[Superlative]

I love How Bush frames the issue, he is really using the troops as a stand point, he is trying his best to avoid the obvious, admitting there needs to be a change in strategy, with his talking points he manipulates the issue, trying to make the public see congress as being against our troops, No one is against the troops, they are clearly against a war Cheney and Rumsfeld started and how it is being handled.


".....Democrats say election results that put them in power, and polls since, indicate that the public wants to pull out of Iraq and expects them to force a withdrawal.

Bush blamed Democrats for a growing impasse, saying they had been irresponsible in pushing bills they knew he would not sign. “Instead of passing clean bills that fund our troops on the front lines,” he said, “the House and Senate have spent this time debating bills that undercut the troops.”

Mr. Bush was seeking to seize the stage in an increasingly heated standoff over war financing that carries political risks for both sides. Democrats immediately struck back, blaming the president for forcing a deadlock that has delayed the release of money for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Bush warned that a failure by Congress to approve the $100 billion he had requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would prolong some tours in Iraq and shorten time at home between tours for others. “That is unacceptable to me,” he said. “And I believe it is unacceptable to the American people.

“It’s one thing to object to the policy, but it’s another thing when you have troops in harm’s way not to give them the funds they need,” he said.

Among the signs of Democrats fighting back are an online petition begun by the presidential campaign of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, expressing opposition to the veto that Mr. Bush has threatened for the bills that would attach timelines for withdrawal to the release of the war financing. “Mr. President, please work with us,” Mrs. Clinton said in a statement on Tuesday. “Don’t veto the will of the American people.”

Mr. Bush alternately exhibited playfulness and annoyance, but issued a similarly pointed call for cooperation. “If Democrat leaders in the Congress are bent on making a political statement, then they need to send me this unacceptable bill as quickly as possible when they come back,” he said. “I’ll veto it, and then Congress can get down to the business of funding our troops without strings and without delay.”

He said that if he did not receive a bill he could sign by mid-April — and he has said he can only sign a bill “with no strings attached” — then the Army would be forced to consider curtailing equipment purchases and repairs and delay the training of National Guard and Reserve units.

Democrats have argued that Mr. Bush made no such complaint last year when Congress, then held by Republicans, did not approve an emergency war spending measure until late spring. And the bill in the House, they said, would mandate that the president follow Pentagon policy limiting deployments and requiring a set period of rest between deployments — one year for the Army; 210 days for the Marines — or obtain waivers to ignore them.

“I think the voters in America want Congress to support our troops who are in harm’s way,” Mr. Bush said. “They don’t want politicians in Washington telling our generals how to fight a war.........”


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/washington/04prexy.html

 

[Vintij]

In the last election, Dems made several promises to the American people to get their vote. Dems promised they would not cut and run from Iraq, they would stand up to terrorists, they would end pork, they would run the most ethical Congress ever, and they would not raise taxes

Well they are 0 for 5 and keep the books open

Dems passed their "Surrender At All Cost Bill", telling the terrorists the exact date the troops will leave Iraq, they packed it with such vital military spending like millions for peanut storage, shrimp and spinach farmers, and effectively handing Iraq over to the terrorists.

I guess this the libs way of standing up to terrorists - give them what they want and hope they will not try and kill us later.

In keeping with on the basic foundations of liberalism, Dems want to pass the largest tax increase in the history of the US. In the Dems new budget, they are proposing new taxes totaling near $400 billion over five years

Dems want to increase marginal rate, reduce child tax credits, increase the marriage penalty, the death tax and capital gains taxes. Yes Dem do not discriminate - they want to take more of everyones money.
Dems said they would "drain the swamp" of corruption and yet a little reported story about Sen Feinstein having to step down as head the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee after reports linked her votes to her husband's companies, which received billions in military construction contracts she approved.

I wonder how Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will handle this ethics issue. Like the liberal media, they will ignore it and try to sweep it under the rug

I thought cut and run meant you leave right away? This bill wont complete a military withdraw until 2008. Thats hardly cutting and running, its more like cutting and slowly backing up. Im tired of the term "cut and run", is that what everyone said in vietnam when the senate voted for a phased withdraw too? When do we have to withdraw 2010? You people would still be saying cut and run if the bill had 2010 as an exit year. That term is soley political and anyone who uses it obviously knows nothing about this bill, which has nothing to do with spinach growers. The excess spending was voted out before the bill passed.

 

[maineman]

I thought cut and run meant you leave right away? This bill wont complete a military withdraw until 2008. Thats hardly cutting and running, its more like cutting and slowly backing up. Im tired of the term "cut and run", is that what everyone said in vietnam when the senate voted for a phased withdraw too? When do we have to withdraw 2010? You people would still be saying cut and run if the bill had 2010 as an exit year. That term is soley political and anyone who uses it obviously knows nothing about this bill, which has nothing to do with spinach growers. The excess spending was voted out before the bill passed.

when it comes to the subject of legislative research, red states retch thinks that Thomas is nothing but a company that makes english muffins.

 

[Superlative]

I thought cut and run meant you leave right away? ...... Im tired of the term "cut and run", ....You people would still be saying cut and run if the bill had 2010 as an exit year. ....That term is soley political and anyone who uses it obviously knows nothing about this bill,......

"CUT AND RUN" is a Political way of framing the issue, Its the exact same as "Support Our Troops" its ambigious, if you're against the war, your not "for our troops" and if you want to end the war, you must want to "cut and run" Its a simple way of turning your positive into a negative.

Its just clever phrasing in order to make the public blindly choose sides, according to the government, you're either for the US or against it, its plain old political positioning, it simplifies things when the issues arent that simple, they are FRAMED in a way that forces people to take a side without thinking.

I realize that there are a million things leading up to this and dont think im ignoring them, i realize its a war/occupation, im just highlighting the facts of "Framing the issue"

Please allow me a HUGE liberty in drawing an analogy for you, which you can rip apart at your leisure.


Lets imagine

Owner "B" Allegedly breaks Owner "A"s window, or at least we totally assume he did, cause we dont like him, and he has a gas station in the parking lot, that we do like.

Owner "A" then says, "Thats it, im going to fuck his shit up."

the owner of a supermarket "A" in retaliation sends employees to supermarket "B", where they smash up the place, and basically try to assume control

After the smash up,
Owner "A" says "its ok, ill send some caretakers over there to clean it up."

When owner "A"s employees complain "you shouldnt have gone and done that"

Owner "A" simply says, "He broke our window first! Dont you support our caretakers? Dont undermine our caretakers, they're over there doing their best and cleaning up."

"A"s employees say, "I guess we support them, they are our employees, we just dont support that you fucked their shit up. You need to stop messing things up over there,"

Owner "A" says, "If you support our employees your on my side, you want to just leave? the jobs not done we cant just cut and run, its still a mess over there,"

"A"s employees"I guess we have to stay, they are our people, and it is a mess."[/I]


Through a constant beratement of repeated Talking points on every major news organization, The US Government has framed the issue as such.
And the gen pop buys the shit they are fed.
Using ambigious terms to frame issues to skew public opinion in their favor, its not new, its just what the general public (who dont generally investigate further than one news channel) end up believing.

 

[Vintij]

"CUT AND RUN" is a Political way of framing the issue, Its the exact same as "Support Our Troops" its ambigious, if you're against the war, your not "for our troops" and if you want to end the war, you must want to "cut and run" Its a simple way of turning your positive into a negative.

Its just clever phrasing in order to make the public blindly choose sides, according to the government, you're either for the US or against it, its plain old political positioning, it simplifies things when the issues arent that simple, they are FRAMED in a way that forces people to take a side without thinking.

I realize that there are a million things leading up to this and dont think im ignoring them, i realize its a war/occupation, im just highlighting the facts of "Framing the issue"

Please allow me a HUGE liberty in drawing an analogy for you, which you can rip apart at your leisure.


Lets imagine

Owner "B" Allegedly breaks Owner "A"s window, or at least we totally assume he did, cause we dont like him, and he has a gas station in the parking lot, that we do like.

Owner "A" then says, "Thats it, im going to fuck his shit up."

the owner of a supermarket "A" in retaliation sends employees to supermarket "B", where they smash up the place.

After the smash up,
Owner "A" says "its ok, ill send some caretakers over there to clean it up."

When owner "A"s employees complain "you shouldnt have gone and done that"

Owner "A" simply says, "He broke our window first! Dont you support our caretakers? Dont undermine our caretakers, they're over there doing their best and cleaning up."

"A"s employees say, "I guess we support them, they are our employees, we just dont support that you fucked their shit up. You need to stop messing things up over there,"

Owner "A" says, "If you support our employees your on my side, you want to just leave? the jobs not done we cant just cut and run, its still a mess over there,"

"A"s employees"I guess we have to stay, they are our people, and it is a mess."[/I]


Through a constant beratement of repeated Talking points on every major news organization, The US Government has framed the issue as such.
And the gen pop buys the shit they are fed.
Using ambigious terms to frame issues to skew public opinion in their favor, its not new, its just what the general public (who dont generally investigate further than one news channel) end up believing.

Wow, ive always wanted to say what you just said, but i never knew how to word everything together without sounding anti-american. I agree with this analogy and the last paraphrase, about how this administration has masterd the art of ambigious "catch phrases" for the public to latch on to. This definitely underminds the american people. To win an election, you must think like a voter, And thats exactly what bush knows how to do, win elections and opinions using catch phrases. Though I do believe that he is being exposed now. The senate was voted in favor of the democrats, to check president bush and his policy. Perhaps the american people dont want to pull out right now, but they definitely proved they want a new policy in iraq. Bush is not moving an inch of his policy so far, signs of a leader who spent more effort getting votes than making a difference.

 

[T-Bor]

Can I just add something here...Didnt the Republicans pull this same bullshit when the dems wanted to raise Minimum Wage a few years ago? So the republicans wrapped some bad shit in a bill with the mimimun wage proposal knowing that the bill would get denied because the only good thing for the American People in that bill was the minimum wage increase. Thus the bill never went anywhere. Just recently congress voted to raise minimum wage.

This is the problem with these "Bills" They should only be allowed to put one thing in a Bill...If you want ten things done, submit ten bills.. This way you cant "Arrange" a bill so that something doesnt get passed because you wrapped other goofy shit in with it. Our System SUCKS !!!!!

 

[T-Bor]

Outstanding post by Superlative as well. I never knew how to phrase it either but he is right on the money. People like RedStates are a perfect example of the public eating the shit they are fed. Its black and white to them without really thinking it through. Awesome post and the govt does do wonderful phrasing of the issue to make it seem so clear cut when in fact it isnt.

Wow, ive always wanted to say what you just said, but i never knew how to word everything together without sounding anti-american. I agree with this analogy and the last paraphrase, about how this administration has masterd the art of ambigious "catch phrases" for the public to latch on to. This definitely underminds the american people. To win an election, you must think like a voter, And thats exactly what bush knows how to do, win elections and opinions using catch phrases. Though I do believe that he is being exposed now. The senate was voted in favor of the democrats, to check president bush and his policy. Perhaps the american people dont want to pull out right now, but they definitely proved they want a new policy in iraq. Bush is not moving an inch of his policy so far, signs of a leader who spent more effort getting votes than making a difference.

 

[Vintij]

Can I just add something here...Didnt the Republicans pull this same bullshit when the dems wanted to raise Minimum Wage a few years ago? So the republicans wrapped some bad shit in a bill with the mimimun wage proposal knowing that the bill would get denied because the only good thing for the American People in that bill was the minimum wage increase. Thus the bill never went anywhere. Just recently congress voted to raise minimum wage.

This is the problem with these "Bills" They should only be allowed to put one thing in a Bill...If you want ten things done, submit ten bills.. This way you cant "Arrange" a bill so that something doesnt get passed because you wrapped other goofy shit in with it. Our System SUCKS !!!!!

haha, well I agree with you but there is too much money and time involved to propose seperate bills. That would take like 20 organized votes a day from both houses. Its already hard enough to get them together, some senators dont even vote. Lousy bastards need to read the jist of it at least. We dont pay taxes for these guys to ignore a bill. Pride my ass.

 

[boedicca]

haha, well I agree with you but there is too much money and time involved to propose seperate bills. That would take like 20 organized votes a day from both houses. Its already hard enough to get them together, some senators dont even vote. Lousy bastards need to read the jist of it at least. We dont pay taxes for these guys to ignore a bill. Pride my ass.

Maybe if they worked a forty hour week they'd have time to vote.

 

[Superlative]

Maybe if they worked a forty hour week they'd have time to vote.

Impossible, you cant possibly work a forty hour week and still have time to see all the lobbyists.

 

[red states rule]

Outstanding post by Superlative as well. I never knew how to phrase it either but he is right on the money. People like RedStates are a perfect example of the public eating the shit they are fed. Its black and white to them without really thinking it through. Awesome post and the govt does do wonderful phrasing of the issue to make it seem so clear cut when in fact it isnt.

In the last election, Dems made several promises to the American people to get their vote. Dems promised they would not cut and run from Iraq, they would stand up to terrorists, they would end pork, they would run the most ethical Congress ever, and they would not raise taxes


Well they are 0 for 5 and keep the books open

Dems passed their "Surrender At All Cost Bill", telling the terrorists the exact date the troops will leave Iraq, they packed it with such vital military spending like millions for peanut storage, shrimp and spinach farmers, and effectively handing Iraq over to the terrorists.


I guess this the libs way of standing up to terrorists - give them what they want and hope they will not try and kill us later.


In keeping with on the basic foundations of liberalism, Dems want to pass the largest tax increase in the history of the US. In the Dems new budget, they are proposing new taxes totaling near $400 billion over five years


Dems want to increase marginal rate, reduce child tax credits, increase the marriage penalty, the death tax and capital gains taxes. Yes Dem do not discriminate - they want to take more of everyones money.


Dems said they would "drain the swamp" of corruption and yet a little reported story about Sen Feinstein having to step down as head the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee after reports linked her votes to her husband's companies, which received billions in military construction contracts she approved.


I wonder how Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will handle this ethics issue. Like the liberal media, they will ignore it and try to sweep it under the rug