I don't want to go all Recliner Pilot on you

[joneo 529]

WASHINGTON - Congress on Thursday night approved a $162 billion spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25402946

 

 

This is a Democrat controlled Congress is it not? Why are they supporting the POTUS on the war if they disagree with him?

[BLS 313]

Depends on which answer you want.

 

On one hand, they're spineless.

On the other, you could buy into the conspiracy theory that the Jews really run this country.

[footballpowers 0]

WASHINGTON - Congress on Thursday night approved a $162 billion spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25402946

This is a Democrat controlled Congress is it not? Why are they supporting the POTUS on the war if they disagree with him?

 

 

Agree that congress is the suck, but what should they do, leave the troops high and dry? What happens if they cut off funding? They put every brave soldier there in 10 times the danger they are already in......BUSH IS THE SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!

[joneo 529]

Agree that congress is the suck, but what should they do, leave the troops high and dry? What happens if they cut off funding? They put every brave soldier there in 10 times the danger they are already in......BUSH IS THE SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

If the Democrats (congress) believe what they have been spewing, yeah, cut off the funding. What is Bush going to do? Leave the troops over there without funding? No. He would have to remove them. That's why I don't get it. It's a bunch of two faced lying dipshits.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

If the Democrats (congress) believe what they have been spewing, yeah, cut off the funding. What is Bush going to do? Leave the troops over there without funding? No. He would have to remove them. That's why I don't get it. It's a bunch of two faced lying dipshits.

 

Not really. If they cut off the spending, then the impact is short term and the only people hurt are the troops. If they want out, they have to get control of the White House and work our way out of Iraq over time. You can't just leave there cold turkey.

 

You also have to figure that there is so much pork and add-ons on that bill that it helps out the Dems in other areas. Typical two-party politics. Both sides get what they want by compromising with the public's money.

[Voltaire 4,558]

The Dems should have cut off funding when they first took over, but the war critics lost that arguent. At least this time they got that new GI BIll thorugh, which is nice (probably a lot of pork in there as well). If Obama wins, this cr@p will come to an end, which to me, is the biggest thing and will play an enormous role in my decision to vote for him, if I do. McCain's miserable failure of judgemednt on this issue is driving away what should be a sure vote.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

The Dems should have cut off funding when they first took over, but the war critics lost that arguent. At least this time they got that new GI BIll thorugh, which is nice (probably a lot of pork in there as well). If Obama wins, this cr@p will come to an end, which to me, is the biggest thing and will play an enormous role in my decision to vote for him, if I do. McCain's miserable failure of judgemednt on this issue is driving away what should be a sure vote.

 

I agree. The only things that I disagree with McCain on are compromises that he is making with the Republican Party on - Iraq and abortion. Those two things have me leery to vote for him.

[Bert 1,091]

The only things that I disagree with McCain on are compromises that he is making with the Republican Party on - Iraq and abortion. Those two things have me leery to vote for him.

 

I agree with you but I am much more leery of Obama. Compare 2008 to 1976. Obama looks like I tanned version of Jimmy Carter. Change, negotiate with enemies, more taxes on the wealth, more social programs, windfall profit tax sound familiar that's Carter's 1976 platform.

 

McCain is the suck but the return of the Misery Index would be much worse.

[FlaHawker 24]

Do most of you realize that Bush's approval rate (roughly 31%) almost doubles the approval rate for the democratically controlled congress (18%)?

 

Yet these are the clowns that libs want to take back the WH and save America

[Voltaire 4,558]

I agree. The only things that I disagree with McCain on are compromises that he is making with the Republican Party on - Iraq and abortion. Those two things have me leery to vote for him.

 

I never cared about abortion. Candidate's positions on it never sway my vote unless they're obsessed with it one way or the other and make it a central them of their campaign in which case it turns me off.

 

I liked him better in 2000, for sure. He's had to triangulate a bit to win the GOP nomination. But whatever poo the Bush worshipers want him to embrace, I think the Dems in Congress will clean him up and keep him in check. Really, McCain and an overwhelming Dem Congress are the way to go. Split leadership of Congress and the Presidentcy worked well for Reagan, Daddy Bush, Clinton and has sucessfully reigned in The Shithead. So that's what I would prefer. PLus, if McCain wins it gives him the mandate to rebuild the GOP in his image; it would be great to have a 2nd party to consider voting for again.

 

But then I think of Iraq again and get all p*ssed off. Also, I'm begining to wonder if giving the Dems free reigns to do as they wish for a couple years is such a bad thing. For some reason, I don't hate their proposals as I have in the past. There's a lot of moderates in that party whereas the GOP is packed full of far-right wing Bible thumping Bush-colon sucking clones.

 

Both options are fine by me. I'm so torn.

[Sho Nuff 719]

The Dems should have cut off funding when they first took over, but the war critics lost that arguent. At least this time they got that new GI BIll thorugh, which is nice (probably a lot of pork in there as well). If Obama wins, this cr@p will come to an end, which to me, is the biggest thing and will play an enormous role in my decision to vote for him, if I do. McCain's miserable failure of judgemednt on this issue is driving away what should be a sure vote.

 

His failure of judgement that was based on the best interest of the military as a whole and supported at the Pentagon you mean?

[FlaHawker 24]

There's a lot of moderates in that party whereas the GOP is packed full of far-right wing Bible thumping Bush-colon sucking clones.

Link--Please provide the names of these moderate libs and Bible humping Bush supporters.

[Bert 1,091]

moderates in that party whereas the GOP is packed full of far-right wing Bible thumping Bush-colon sucking clones.

 

Dude, I think living in that communist state is starting to effect you brain.

[Voltaire 4,558]

Link--Please provide the names of these moderate libs and Bible humping Bush supporters.

 

The Dems picked up many red state Republican seats this past election by running moderates and conservatives. Heath Schuler and Jim Webb come to mind first, but they've got a whole range of new moderate faces.

 

As for the GOP, during the Bushtard's march off the cliff into bugetary red ink, going to war, stacking government agencies with nitwits, and wiping thier asses on the Constitution, the Congressional GOP were cheering, voting straight party line, and masturbating to every word spoke and misspoke. The whole GOP lot was voting straight party line other than a handful like McCain. I hold 95% of them is responsble. So fock them. I hope they all lose.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I agree with you but I am much more leery of Obama. Compare 2008 to 1976. Obama looks like I tanned version of Jimmy Carter. Change, negotiate with enemies, more taxes on the wealth, more social programs, windfall profit tax sound familiar that's Carter's 1976 platform.

 

McCain is the suck but the return of the Misery Index would be much worse.

 

I did not say that I was not leery of Obama. The issues with McCain just puts me in a situation (again) where I am voting for the lesser of two evils.

 

I do care about positions on abortion for this President as their appointments will likely shape SCOTUS.

 

Either way, I would prefer to have a candidate that I could really get behind instead of the trepidation that comes with Presidential elections now.

[Bert 1,091]

As for the GOP, during the Bushtard's march off the cliff into bugetary red ink, going to war, stacking government agencies with nitwits, and wiping thier asses on the Constitution, the Congressional GOP were cheering, voting straight party line, and masturbating to every word spoke and misspoke. The whole GOP lot was voting straight party line other than a handful like McCain. I hold 95% of them is responsble. So fock them. I hope they all lose.

 

 

Given this statement why don't you have the same hate for the current congress that are fully supporting Bush????

 

Oh that's right they are Democrats.

 

Same old party politics nothing changes.

[Bert 1,091]

I did not say that I was not leery of Obama. The issues with McCain just puts me in a situation (again) where I am voting for the lesser of two evils.

 

I do care about positions on abortion for this President as their appointments will likely shape SCOTUS.

 

Either way, I would prefer to have a candidate that I could really get behind instead of the trepidation that comes with Presidential elections now.

Amen brother Amen.

[I have no idea what i'm doing 0]

Iraq is a touchy issue for a lot of people, and I think they can't let go of the idea that we should have never gone in. That may or may not be right, but at this point, it's irrelevant.

 

What is relevant is the fact that we are there now. We need to carefully consider the consequences of a pullout. I think an honest assessment of the situation points to a responsibility for the US to maintain a presence there in order to essentially fix what's been broken. To leave prior to this invites greater instability in the region, as well as the potential for a new, hostile government to take hold in Iraq. It just doesn't make sense to leave before the job is done. McCain is far from perfect, but he's more right than Obama OR Barr on this issue.

[wiffleball 4,640]

Agree that congress is the suck, but what should they do, leave the troops high and dry? What happens if they cut off funding? They put every brave soldier there in 10 times the danger they are already in......BUSH IS THE SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Yeah, been down this road before. Surprised you (Joneo) need it explained again after 5 years of "DON'T YOU SUPPORT THE TROOPS?"

 

 

 

Joneo- Whatever happened to that doosh bag cop that beat up the little Chicago bartender and then his doosh bag cop boyfriends tried to come around and threaten her not to testify?? Been pretty quiet. What does your subscription to little-diicked wife beater insecure doosh bag cop weekly say??

[Voltaire 4,558]

Given this statement why don't you have the same hate for the current congress that are fully supporting Bush????

 

Oh that's right they are Democrats.

 

Same old party politics nothing changes.

 

There's nothing going on. Everything is gridlocked. Normally that's a bad thing, but with the Bushtard still hanging around it's probably the best situation we can hope for.

[Bert 1,091]

There's nothing going on. Everything is gridlocked. Normally that's a bad thing, but with the Bushtard still hanging around it's probably the best situation we can hope for.

 

 

So Palosi and the Democratic majority are Bushtards right? Can't have it both ways Voltaire. You are so pissed off that Bush and the Repub congress got us into Iraq but don't seem to care that Bush and the Democratic controlled congress are going to get us into Iran. Why no hate for the Democratic congress for passing this crap???

 

 

A non-binding resolution to demand that President Bush impose "stringent inspection requirements" on trade with Iran - language that leaves the door open for a military blockade - will likely come to the House floor this week, according to sources close to Congressional leadership. The legislation, H.Con.Res.362, which is paralleled by a similar Senate bill, has gained bipartisan support rapidly, with more co-sponsors signing on by the day. Once it hits the floor, it's bound to "pass like a hot knife through butter," a staffer in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office told Chelsea Mozen of the nonprofit Just Foreign Policy.

 

Trita Parsi, co-founder and president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), concurred, saying passage may happen as early as Tuesday.

 

"This bill will likely be put on the floor under suspension - meaning that it will pass without even a vote," Parsi told Truthout.

 

Bills placed under rules of suspension are usually uncontroversial. However, this one is an ominous exception, according to Parsi.

 

"It sets the stage for a very dangerous escalation," he said.

 

The most strongly worded section of the legislation is article three, which states: "Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress - (3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia [among other things], prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program."

 

The resolution makes no mention of the National Intelligence Estimate report released in December 2007, which found that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons development program in 2003.

 

The language regarding inspection requirements and restrictions of movement have led critics of the bill to suggest that, if implemented, this type of international sanction would amount to an embargo and would have to be put into place at gunpoint. Such action would be illegal under international law, unless approved by the UN, according to Ethan Chorin, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies' Middle East Program. UN approval is not mentioned in the bill.

 

Moreover, the resolution would unquestionably send a hostile message to Iran, according to Chorin.

 

"The Iranians would certainly view this as an act of war, whether or not they acted on it as such," Chorin told Truthout. "All of this would confirm the Gulf Arabs' perceptions that the US is playing an increasingly destabilizing role in the region."

[gocolts 300]

 

Dude, I think living in that communist state is starting to effect you brain.

I am wondering the exact same thing. I like Voltaire and all, but the last few weeks he seems......different.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My first ever response to a Bert post. :overhead:

[Voltaire 4,558]

So Palosi and the Democratic majority are Bushtards right? Can't have it both ways Voltaire. You are so pissed off that Bush and the Repub congress got us into Iraq but don't seem to care that Bush and the Democratic controlled congress are going to get us into Iran. Why no hate for the Democratic congress for passing this crap???

 

 

Frankly, I consider this past year and a half to have been by far the best of the Bush presidentcy. He's totally in check and retreat on his entire agenda. He's got better/more capable people around, Iraq is less awful than before, he just got North Korea to come to terms on a nuke deal (in fairness I don't know the details, but I'll give him credit), he did a good job touring the Iowa flooding last week, he told the Dems to fock themselves on California emissions standards.

 

Really, I'm not holding my breath. The bar of expectations is under the floorboards, he just has to fall down on his way to the kitchen to get over it. But he has a habit of digging holes and stumbling anyways. He's been a complete failure from the getgo.

 

As for this bill, I don't know much about it. It's hard to imagine anything controversial making it through Congress without anyone raising a voice. Getting them all to agree on even minor things is nearly impossible.

[mayhem39 3]

Do most of you realize that Bush's approval rate (roughly 31%) almost doubles the approval rate for the democratically controlled congress (18%)?

 

Yet these are the clowns that libs want to take back the WH and save America

 

 

I'm not a lib or conservative but honestly, can you say that the republicans can fix everything? Both of these parties have been screwing things up for decades. Dem or Rep, they're all a bunch of two-faced liars that don't give a ###### about the average American. wake up.