NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/12/us.iraq.ap/index.html

Instead of passing worthless "resolutions" mildly criticizing the "surge" (said resolutions amounting to little more than slaps on the wrist), why don't the Democrats do something constructive, like, I don't know, try to cut funding for the war, or demand a timetable for when our troops leave?

Worthless bastards. :rolleyes:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/12/us.iraq.ap/index.html

Instead of passing worthless "resolutions" mildly criticizing the "surge" (said resolutions amounting to little more than slaps on the wrist), why don't the Democrats do something constructive, like, I don't know, try to cut funding for the war, or demand a timetable for when our troops leave?

Worthless bastards. :rolleyes:

Cutting funding just leaves our troops out to dry. And demanding a timetable only encourages the terrorists, since they know they only have to make it until a certain date.

As much as I hate the war in Iraq, I will not back down from supporting the troops (Either stand behind them, or stand in front of them).

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/12/us.iraq.ap/index.html

Instead of passing worthless "resolutions" mildly criticizing the "surge" (said resolutions amounting to little more than slaps on the wrist), why don't the Democrats do something constructive, like, I don't know, try to cut funding for the war, or demand a timetable for when our troops leave?

Worthless bastards. :rolleyes:

Much as I would like more to be done, I also realize that passing actual legislation takes both Houses of Congress, and that getting anything through the Senate takes 60 votes, not 51, and then has to get past a Bush veto. Now, I would love to get there, but at least with the House resolution (as opposed to the Senate one), every member will have a chance to speak for 5 minutes, which is unheard of in the House, and will therefore either be on the record for their next election campaign, or will be accused of running from the issue. It ain't much, but it's something.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/12/us.iraq.ap/index.html

Instead of passing worthless "resolutions" mildly criticizing the "surge" (said resolutions amounting to little more than slaps on the wrist), why don't the Democrats do something constructive, like, I don't know, try to cut funding for the war, or demand a timetable for when our troops leave?

Worthless bastards. :rolleyes:
Dur. If the Democrats try to cut funding in any serious way, Bush and his cronies will just accuse them of kneecapping the troops in their time of need -- conveniently ignoring the fact that Bush and his cronies were the ones that put them in Iraq in the first place. That kind of thing resonates, even if most people are now against the war.

Dur. If the Democrats try to cut funding in any serious way, Bush and his cronies will just accuse them of kneecapping the troops in their time of need -- conveniently ignoring the fact that Bush and his cronies were the ones that put them in Iraq in the first place. That kind of thing resonates, even if most people are now against the war.That is just not true.. We-the-people are not Idiots.. we know better than that.. (The "American Idiot" Song is uncalled for)

We all should remember the Vietnam War aftermath.. We all recognized the people behind the Tonkin incident were the ones that put US in the quagmire.. we never-ever blamed the Hippies, the Kerries or the Jane-Fondas.

we are smarter than that.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/12/us.iraq.ap/index.html

Instead of passing worthless "resolutions" mildly criticizing the "surge" (said resolutions amounting to little more than slaps on the wrist), why don't the Democrats do something constructive, like, I don't know, try to cut funding for the war, or demand a timetable for when our troops leave?

Worthless bastards. :rolleyes:
The problem with both those is that the Bush administration doesn't give a damn what anyone else thinks they aare just going to do what they want. So all cutting the budget will do is hurt the troops over there, I think its been pretty well ilustrated that the Bush administration doesn't particularly worry about how well equiped they are so I doubt they will move them out just because they won't have the money to take equip them properly. As for demanding a timetable, how exactly are they supose to go about that, they don't have any real power in the matter, so all they can really do would be to pass a resolution.

As said, they can't possibly cut fundings for the war, only for the military, but which would naturally cripple American military power and put the soldiers' lives on the line.

No matter how anti-war we may personally feel, it is ammoral to make the soldiers, who the public sent in the first place, bear the consequences of American political short-sightedness.

It's like Vietnam all over, when soldiers drafted into the military were condemned for something they had no choice over.

getting anything through the Senate takes 60 votes, not 51

unless the republicans are in control, at which point the dems have to "keep their powder dry"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/12/us.iraq.ap/index.html

Instead of passing worthless "resolutions" mildly criticizing the "surge" (said resolutions amounting to little more than slaps on the wrist), why don't the Democrats do something constructive, like, I don't know, try to cut funding for the war, or demand a timetable for when our troops leave?

Worthless bastards. :rolleyes:

Ummm... we must be thinking of different definitions for the word constructive. Cause, you know, cutting spending on keeping our troops alive is really constructive.

To get meaningful legislation passed, it's going to take 290 votes in the House and 67 in the Senate--that's the veto-proof number for both Houses. That means the Democrats would need 57 Republicans in the House and 17 in the Senate to cross the aisle and vote to pull the troops out. (It's 17 because Lieberman will never vote for that, the fuckwad.) So who's going to cross the aisle?

On this resolution in the House, if they get to 270, I'll be amazed--and that's for a non-binding resolution. And in the Senate they couldn't even get to 60 for the resolution. So what do you demand of the Democratic leadership on this?

That is just not true.. We-the-people are not Idiots.. we know better than that.. (The "American Idiot" Song is uncalled for)

We all should remember the Vietnam War aftermath.. We all recognized the people behind the Tonkin incident were the ones that put US in the quagmire.. we never-ever blamed the Hippies, the Kerries or the Jane-Fondas.

we are smarter than that.We-the-people re-elected Dubya. We are idiots.

btw,

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/6240/spinepunxmx9.jpg

As said, they can't possibly cut fundings for the war, only for the military

why not?

and what would be wrong with cutting funding for the imperialist behemoth by, say, 70% anyways?

my post was a mountain of sarcasm.
Sorry--I stay out of your threads these days, so I'd forgotten your style.

We-the-people re-elected Dubya. We are idiots.my post was a mountain of sarcasm.

We-the-people re-elected Dubya. We are idiots.

Not all of us. I highly doubt you voted for him, and I know I sure as hell didn't.

Not all of us. I highly doubt you voted for him, and I know I sure as hell didn't.

Absolutely not--but the collective we didn't elect anyone else, so we all bear some responsibility for the act. No question that some people have a shitload more bad karma to work off than others, but I figure we've all got a little to work off for that manuever.

btw,

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/6240/spinepunxmx9.jpg

well i thought it was appropriate

well i thought it was appropriate

It took me a moment, but I laughed.

It took me a moment, but I laughed.

humor delayed is humor denied

I still don't get it. :(

I still don't get it. :(

what's not to get?

what's not to get?

Its a jellyfish...yeah...

Ummm... we must be thinking of different definitions for the word constructive. Cause, you know, cutting spending on keeping our troops alive is really constructive.Hang on, you're saying it's constructive (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/constructive) to spend money on keeping citizens in a situation where they get killed?

You're right. Must be using radically different definitions. Granted, this isn't my first language these days, but are you sure you're speaking english?

Hang on, you're saying it's constructive (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/constructive) to spend money on keeping citizens in a situation where they get killed?

the urge to bomb and be bombed is a constructive urge, maybe?

the urge to bomb and be bombed is a constructive urge, maybe?Oh right, it improves the rate of death, promotes disease, poverty & dispair, and eventually paves the way for damn cheap realestate. I should've guessed that's how he sees it. Silly me.

why not?

and what would be wrong with cutting funding for the imperialist behemoth by, say, 70% anyways?

I don't see how they could do it. It'll just come out of the Defense budget. Well yes, you can cut the U.S. military budget down by 70% too, and give the unemployment figures a two million hike plus several thousand more deaths counts in Iraq.

I don't see how they could do it.easy..
2 separate steps.
#1 cut funds to the Pentagon until the Surge plan is canceled

#2 decrease progressively the Pentagon funds (lets say -2 % per week) until they bring the boys home.. once they are home.. all normal funding is restored.

I still don't get the tenant jellyfish...:(

I still don't get the tenant jellyfish...:(maybe the landlord is the Occean ? :cool:

I say bring it on!! .. stinky Je-lo-fish :D

To get meaningful legislation passed, it's going to take 290 votes in the House and 67 in the Senate--that's the veto-proof number for both Houses. That means the Democrats would need 57 Republicans in the House and 17 in the Senate to cross the aisle and vote to pull the troops out. (It's 17 because Lieberman will never vote for that, the fuckwad.) So who's going to cross the aisle?

On this resolution in the House, if they get to 270, I'll be amazed--and that's for a non-binding resolution. And in the Senate they couldn't even get to 60 for the resolution. So what do you demand of the Democratic leadership on this?

An excellent point. You are quite right. This is exactly why all the promises made by the Democrat party were empty ones. They can't get anything done for exactly the same reaosn the Republican party couldn't before. The excuses get traded back and forth but they never change.

The fact is they wouldn't just pull the troops anyway, even if they did have enough of a majority because they know the American people, while unenthusiastic about the war, don't want us to just pull out and let it all collapse. We did that in 1974 and people haven't forgotten.

the American people, while unenthusiastic about the war, don't want us to just pull out.. so.. what do the "American people" want?


(Democrats) wouldn't just pull the troops anyway, even if they did have enough of a majority because they know the American people.. don't want ... What?

The front runners Know what the "American people" want (to happen next in Iraq)??
Do they(candidates) know what they want?

answer this one: What does Hilary wants? (to happen in Iraq).

BTW.. "Victory" is not a realistic option for US.
"Victory" is a an empty promise out of reach.. staged aboard some carrier with the "mission accomplished" banner..

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/12/us.iraq.ap/index.html

Instead of passing worthless "resolutions" mildly criticizing the "surge" (said resolutions amounting to little more than slaps on the wrist), why don't the Democrats do something constructive, like, I don't know, try to cut funding for the war, or demand a timetable for when our troops leave?

Can you say "veto"? How about "override-proof veto"?

Worthless bastards. :rolleyes:

No, the real "worthless bastards" are the cut-and-run bunch whose only concern is exploiting the issue to seize political power, regardless of the harm they do to the country in the process.

The Donkocrats should do something original for once in their lives, like coming up with a plan for victory instead of retreat and surrender. Won't ever happen, though.

The Donkocrats should do something original for once in their lives, like coming up with a plan for victory "victory"?
The War-party plan for Victory is "not to lose the war"

there was a plan for US victory @ the Vietnam War.
We just had to stay.. we do not lose for as long as we stay.

So.. we stayed... and stayed.. and stayed the course.. and stayed the course.. and stayed some more.

Read the Constitution, folks.

Because it would be political suicide. The moment that a policy is announced, the democrats emperil their own position.

The Donkocrats should do something original for once in their lives, like coming up with a plan for victory instead of retreat and surrender. Won't ever happen, though.
That's like saying, "Well yeah, we set the building on fire, and yeah, we allowed it to burn completely out of control for 2 days straight, and yeah, we have been throwing firefighters into the blaze without any hoses for that entire time, and yeah, we've pretty much done absolutely everything completely wrong from the moment we arrived...but where's YOUR plan for VICTORY over this fire?!"

Bush and the Rubber-Stamp Republicans fucked up so badly that the building is burned to ashes. It is pathetic in the extreme to then point your finger at the Democrats and whine about how they don't have a plan to turn back time and save the building.

Democrats deserve to be given shit for the fact that they stood by and let it happen, and even enabled the jackasses who screwed up every single step in this misguided war. But don't give me this crap about how Democrats have to magically undo all the failure of 7 years of REPUBLICAN rule. Democrats have to clean up the mess, and that's the best anybody can ask for. Any chance at victory was blown by Bush and his cronies years ago.

They can't get anything done for exactly the same reaosn the Republican party couldn't before.

before when?

made by the Democrat party
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsqprEihjXg&eurl=
Two can play the "I can refuse to call the opposition party by its proper name" game. And he's a lot better at mocking your sorry asses than you'll ever be at mocking us. Know why? Because he doesn't have to make shit up in order to make his points.

I don't see how they could do it. It'll just come out of the Defense budget. Well yes, you can cut the U.S. military budget down by 70% too, and give the unemployment figures a two million hike plus several thousand more deaths counts in Iraq.

the defense dept doesn't just get a check for 600 billion dollars. their spending is at least theoretically constrained by law.

why would there be several thousand more deaths in iraq? i assume you aren't talking about iraqis, considering that the imperialist presence there is responsible for multiple hundreds of thousands of deaths on their side - so what are you talking about?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsqprEihjXg&eurl=
Two can play the "I can refuse to call the opposition party by its proper name" game. And he's a lot better at mocking your sorry asses than you'll ever be at mocking us. Know why? Because he doesn't have to make shit up in order to make his points.

That was amusing, though as always I do note that it is a valid point, that whole dealie about Al Gore's jet. It shouldn't be used to completely halt any argument about global warming the way it is, of course, but it IS a valid point. It certainly isn't helping, at least.

That was amusing, though as always I do note that it is a valid point, that whole dealie about Al Gore's jet. It shouldn't be used to completely halt any argument about global warming the way it is, of course, but it IS a valid point. It certainly isn't helping, at least.

Gore's buying offsets for the jet, and has been all along, so it's really a non-issue.

Gore's buying offsets for the jet, and has been all along, so it's really a non-issue.
Offsets?

Offsets?

Paying for trees to be planted to off-set the emissions of the plane.

Offsets?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset

Paying for trees to be planted to off-set the emissions of the plane.

Well...why not pay for the trees to be planted anyway and not use the jet? That would double what he's doing to help the environment.

I still don't get the tenant jellyfish...:(

it's an invertebrate quoting the dead kennedys

Paying for trees to be planted to off-set the emissions of the plane.
That, and paying another company to reduce their pollution to make up for the pollution he's creating. It's part of the energy trading system that Kyoto was dealing with.

Well...why not pay for the trees to be planted anyway and not use the jet? That would double what he's doing to help the environment.

yeah, he's already carbon neutral - why not go all the way and stop doing the vitally important work of getting other people to be too?

yeah, he's already carbon neutral - why not go all the way and stop doing the vitally important work of getting other people to be too?

Well, he doesn't have to stop his work...I just thought I'd suggest something, that's all. Being carbon negative would be good too, yah?

and what would be wrong with cutting funding for the imperialist behemoth by, say, 70% anyways?

Not a damn thing.

Not a damn thing.

what scares me is that in doing so we would still spend more than double what the next highest country does on their war machine

what scares me is that in doing so we would still spend more than double what the next highest country does on their war machine

You're not the only one who finds that scary.

I say if you want to be in a country where they spend no money on national security then go to canada or something, somewhere nicer and with less problems then the US, then nobody will have to complain about all this stupid bullsh*t. Im glad they spend the money that they do even if it is a lot. keep in mind however that the US is an extremely wealthy nation and perhaps the reason why we already spend so much on national security is because we can. other nations dont have nearly as much money or national resources that we do and thus cant spend that much on security anyways. that and they tend to spend more money on social programs like unversal health care and very extensive social welfare programs. we just don't do that here.

I say if you want to be in a country where they spend no money on national security then go to canada or something,

Hi. I'd like to point out that you show yourself as a rather ignorant fool with that statement. Canada most definitely spends money on national security and defense. Who do you think runs NORAD with us? Who do you think trains a lot of our troops? Who do you think guards their coastlines, mans their border patrols--what few there are--and all that jazz? Who the hell do you think fought in World Wars I and II for the Canadians? Who do you think is fighting in Afghanistan right now for the Canadians? Canada does not spend absolute zero on national defense, and anyone who thinks that is an idiot.

Hi. I'd like to point out that you show yourself as a rather ignorant fool with that statement. Canada most definitely spends money on national security and defense. Who do you think runs NORAD with us? Who do you think trains a lot of our troops? Who do you think guards their coastlines, mans their border patrols--what few there are--and all that jazz? Who the hell do you think fought in World Wars I and II for the Canadians? Who do you think is fighting in Afghanistan right now for the Canadians? Canada does not spend absolute zero on national defense, and anyone who thinks that is an idiot.

Forgive me if you couldnt tell that i was being saracasitic but if you research, then youd find that Canada does not spend nearly as much money on National Security as the US does. As i said before, i was being sarcastic and i fully know how the canadians have helped in the past.

Forgive me if you couldnt tell that i was being saracasitic but if you research, then youd find that Canada does not spend nearly as much money on National Security as the US does. As i said before, i was being sarcastic and i fully know how the canadians have helped in the past.

Of course Canada doesn't spend as much as the U.S. No one spends as much as the U.S., with the possible exceptions of North Korea and China. I was merely pointing out that saying Canada does not spend anything at all is a foolish statement, though one I do occasionally hear from idiot "conservative" people around where I live.

I say if you want to be in a country where they spend no money on national security then go to canada or something, somewhere nicer and with less problems then the US, then nobody will have to complain about all this stupid bullsh*t. Im glad they spend the money that they do even if it is a lot. keep in mind however that the US is an extremely wealthy nation and perhaps the reason why we already spend so much on national security is because we can. other nations dont have nearly as much money or national resources that we do and thus cant spend that much on security anyways. that and they tend to spend more money on social programs like unversal health care and very extensive social welfare programs. we just don't do that here.

Do you understand the concept of debt? We owe multiple billions, with a B, to countries like Japan. Where is this money you claim we are rolling about in?

Also, how bad is British security?

keep in mind however that the US is an extremely wealthy nation and perhaps the reason why we already spend so much on national security is because we can. other nations dont have nearly as much money or national resources that we do and thus cant spend that much on security anyways.

i don't think the global distribution of wealth is quite skewed enough to make that work

that and they tend to spend more money on social programs like unversal health care and very extensive social welfare programs. we just don't do that here.

wait, i thought you approved of the war machine

easy..
2 separate steps.
#1 cut funds to the Pentagon until the Surge plan is canceled

#2 decrease progressively the Pentagon funds (lets say -2 % per week) until they bring the boys home.. once they are home.. all normal funding is restored.

I thought they allocate funds yearly to the Pentagon.....