RE: It passed.

RE: It passed. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> RE: It passed. (3/23/2007 1:45:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 It'll never pass the Senate. And even if it does, Bush will veto it. The chances of this becoming law is zero. I'm wondering... If it's veto'd, why not just authorize it again in the House and Senate? Land it on Bush's desk TWICE, and guess who's holding the bag for "Not Supporting The Troops".

Mercnbeth -> RE: It passed. (3/23/2007 1:46:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: puella There is 'pork' in every bill. It does not negate the good and important that is the main thrust. puella, I took this quote from Goddess Dusty's post. I couldn't find it in your original. What is the "good and important that is the main thrust"? The troop withdraw? Why will it be important in August 2008 but not important now? Funding the troops? If it were than why put a target on the surrender date? Why not stand up and fund an April 2007 withdraw. Wouldn't that reflect the battle cry for change which Speaker Pelosi said she represented when she took the position three heartbeats away from the Presidency? It seems the PORK was the most important aspect. It occurs now. Usually you act upon what you believe most critical first.

farglebargle -> RE: It passed. (3/23/2007 1:49:22 PM)
quote: The troop withdraw? Why will it be important in August 2008 but not important now? Bush wanted time to prove his "Surge Strategy" wasn't going to be just another failure. That time provides it. No-one can say they didn't give his last-great-plan a chance.

KenDckey -> RE: It passed. (3/23/2007 1:53:39 PM)
I think they are going to accomplish with this exercise 1 - Stiring up the pro-soldier feelings if just one soldier is injured because of lack of funding caused by setting artifical deadlines. 2 - Tieing the hands of the troops in the field. 3 - Cuts in dependent and stateside quality of life funding for our troops. 4 - Possible backlash against the Democratic Congress for a - Pelosi's lies about not doing this b - endangering the lives of the troops Just my 2 cents

puella -> RE: It passed. (3/23/2007 1:59:09 PM)
I am very much for getting the troops out, the sooner the better, but there are both both physical and idealogical problems in pulling the troops out by April 7, as you suggested. It would take quite some time before that would (and could) be completed.. and to not have the clusterfuck going out that we did getting in.. it would be a good idea to have some pre-planning. Even if the order was given today to pull out of Iraq it would take I think it does make sense to but the Iraqi government on notice that we are going to deploy and you better start working on getting your shit together. We did, after all, deliver this current state of hell to them. Would I have liked it sooner yes, yes especially as my brother is currently about ten seconds from being sent back to baghdad. Do I always get everything I want, no. Is that bad thing... only on certain times of the month.. am I suddenly talking like Donald Rumsfled, yes and it is squicking me. [;)] The Congress is finally excersising its rights and obligation to the people they serve to act as both a check on the executive and as an oversite body. I am very very glad that the issues of the actual state of the troops, mental and physical is finally being prioritized before the state of Bush's ill conceived and deadly plan (to both Americans and countless thousands of innocent Iraqis) to invade that country. I am glad funds are being directed to Katrina and Rita reparations, I am glad that the state of medical care for active duty military and veterans is being address, especially in a time of war.

ferryman777 -> RE: It passed. (3/23/2007 2:04:30 PM)
Hillary will be president. She will face the boys coming back...to NO jobs. It's all Hillary's fault the war was started in the first place. She sitting on her fat cow ass, doing nothing. Just like, yeah, just like when the Germans attacked Pearl Harbor, what was Bill Clinton doing...WHAT !!! I ask you. BTW...I do like your posts.

puella -> RE: It passed. (3/23/2007 2:06:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ferryman777 Hillary will be president. Good lord, I hope not!

cyberdude611 -> RE: It passed. (3/23/2007 2:12:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 It'll never pass the Senate. And even if it does, Bush will veto it. The chances of this becoming law is zero. I'm wondering... If it's veto'd, why not just authorize it again in the House and Senate? Land it on Bush's desk TWICE, and guess who's holding the bag for "Not Supporting The Troops". Bush isn't running for re-election. He will just keep vetoing it. And it took a LOT just to get enough Dems in the house to support this measure. I doubt it will pass a second time. Pelosi forefeited a lot of capital.

Mercnbeth -> RE: It passed. (3/23/2007 2:12:32 PM)
quote: Bush wanted time to prove his "Surge Strategy" wasn't going to be just another failure. That time provides it. No-one can say they didn't give his last-great-plan a chance. fargle, So you see this vote as support for President Bush? Did the voters who, according to Senator Pelosi and many others, assumed positions of power or were newly elected, because the people wanted a change expect a vote in support of the lame duck President? May as well have kept the Republicans in power if that was the mindset. You, assuming you are happy in this vote, and the others that point to this as "progress"; is this what you had in mind? A vote to facilitate for the next 17 months the ongoing efforts of a President you see as a liar, fraud, and incompetent? I can understand some of the most vocal congressmen/woman within the Democratic party changing their minds when money was allocated to their districts, but on a personal level is this your expectation of this Congress? Bush didn't have, doesn't have a vote in the House or Senate. Speaker Pelosi "holds the gavel". Let President Bush stand alone with his veto and be identified for it. I only ask that similarly we view Speaker Pelosi's actions to identify her and those who supported this Bill. See it for what it is. Today's PORK, paid with US Soldier blood over the next 17 months, while they are held hostage by politicians more concerned about their re-election than any issue of integrity, morality, or belief. Obviously this Bill shows that Congress sees them as pawns to be used in an election campaign. If they believed in their pre-2006 election positions and believe their election was a call for change, specifically regarding what is occurring in Iraq, why defer? More importantly, it means we didn't get the "change" that we voted for - right? Think about that next time you have a chance to vote any and all incumbents out of office. Basically - Vote NO!

puella -> RE: It passed. (3/23/2007 2:14:11 PM)
Actually.. it wasn't as bad as it looked, 14 dems didn't vote for it because they wanted a sooner pull out date.

cyberdude611 -> RE: It passed. (3/23/2007 2:16:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: puella Actually.. it wasn't as bad as it looked, 14 dems didn't vote for it because they wanted a sooner pull out date. The bill is loaded with pork. Which pretty much makes it a joke. Several reps were voting for the pork and not the pullout.

michaelOfGeorgia -> RE: It passed. (3/23/2007 2:17:17 PM)
quote: Hillary will be president. She will face the boys coming back...to NO jobs. wonder if there's a way to transfer to a different planet if this happens. it will be be the biggest mistake America has made since the country was stolen from the Indians. Wish the Indians had maintained control, things wouldn't be as bad as they are now.

cyberdude611 -> RE: It passed. (3/23/2007 2:19:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelOfGeorgia quote: Hillary will be president. She will face the boys coming back...to NO jobs. wonder if there's a way to transfer to a different planet if this happens. it will be be the biggest mistake America has made since the country was stolen from the Indians. Wish the Indians had maintained control, things wouldn't be as bad as they are now. Indians had control of America? They may have owned the land but I dont think they ever controlled the government. The president in 2008 is going to be a joke. We currently have a leadership deficit in America in both political parties. It doesn't matter who wins, he/she will not be a very good president. And will be a weak one.

Mercnbeth -> RE: It passed. (3/23/2007 2:32:40 PM)
quote: I am very much for getting the troops out, the sooner the better, but there are both both physical and idealogical problems in pulling the troops out by April 7, as you suggested. It would take quite some time before that would (and could) be completed.. and to not have the clusterfuck going out that we did getting in.. it would be a good idea to have some pre-planning. Even if the order was given today to pull out of Iraq it would take I think it does make sense to but the Iraqi government on notice that we are going to deploy and you better start working on getting your shit together. puella, No attack intended here to you, and I shouldn't be responding so quickly since I just hit the "OK" button, but I have to point out something to you. Iraq is often compared to Vietnam right? Remember that withdraw? Did it matter that it was planned months in advance? Do you think any planned, organized program we leave behind for Iraq or its citizens will be employed the first second the last soldier's foot is off the ground in Baghdad? Tomorrow or August 2008, the evacuation of US troops and influence out of Iraq will most likely make the Vietnam evacuation seem like the last day of a Boy Scout Jamboree. Moreover between now and then what do you think will happen? What action can any of the soldiers or persons in authority take that won't have that August 2008 expiration date. The factions who have been at war for centuries within Iraq will be back at "play". And don't forget about the neighbors. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, among others, will be very interested in taking up the vacuum. Think that will go soothly now? How about in August 2008 after they've had 17 months of planning their moves? I empathize for your concern for your brother. By my own criteria, seeking the withdraw of all troops from the region, I can't represent I "support the troops". I would view myself as hypocritical when support them, to me, means supporting their mission. I know I don't, because I belief their 'mission' is a son trying to revenge his father. On this issue I believe that any Bill, setting a date for surrender, puts your brother at greater risk than funding the status quo.

Vendaval -> RE: It passed. (3/23/2007 2:36:22 PM)
How is the Iraq War Hillary's fault? I do not understand your point. Are you being sarcastic or serious? quote: ORIGINAL: ferryman777 Hillary will be president. She will face the boys coming back...to NO jobs. It's all Hillary's fault the war was started in the first place. She sitting on her fat cow ass, doing nothing. Just like, yeah, just like when the Germans attacked Pearl Harbor, what was Bill Clinton doing...WHAT !!! I ask you.

puella -> RE: It passed. (3/23/2007 2:41:59 PM)
Well, I do agree that when we do pull out it will cause another wave of devastation to that country. But leaving tomorrow wouldn't make it any less so. I would hope (I certainly can not claim to know for sure) that some time would give us plans to help lessen that devastation... at least a little bit. Everyone is certainly entitled to their own definition of supporting the troops, and for the most part I would not knock any of them (there are some extremists on both ends of the spectrum I suspect I would not support), but to me, our military has been greatly misused and abused in Iraq. I think the mission they were sent in there for (I forget which reason we ended up with, but I believe it was to oust the murderous dictator and set up the framework for a 'Jeffersonian' democracy' (though idiotic in its conception) has been finished. Now, they are just there taking bullets for GW's pipe dream and desire to not look like the biggest fuck wad of a president this country has ever known... it's never good when you make even the alcoholic presidents look like not so bad dudes.

puella -> RE: It passed. (3/23/2007 2:43:55 PM)
It's not her fault, Vendaval. She did, however vote against her constituents and authorize the invasion.

Mercnbeth -> RE: It passed. (3/23/2007 2:44:40 PM)
quote: leaving tomorrow wouldn't make it any less so. or more so. My best to your brother!

Vendaval -> RE: It passed. (3/23/2007 2:53:19 PM)
I saw that, puella. Many feel this is the best shot we have at the moment. quote: ORIGINAL: puella Actually.. it wasn't as bad as it looked, 14 dems didn't vote for it because they wanted a sooner pull out date.

puella -> RE: It passed. (3/23/2007 2:57:04 PM)
You may well be right. Thank you... keep your fingers crossed!

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625