NationStates Jolt Archive

The passage of that bill by a margin far short of that needed to override a veto is pure symbolism.

Do you remember Bush landing on the Lincoln, and claiming "Mission Accomplished"?

This is the same sort of stunt, except that Pelosi and Reid don't have an aircraft carrier at their disposal.

Bush to Democrats: do not 'test my will' on Iraq
1 hour, 5 minutes ago

CAMP DAVID, United States (AFP) - President George W. Bush warned Democrats Friday not to "test my will" by passing new legislation on a US troop pullout from Iraq after he vetoes a bill passed by Congress this week.

Bush invited Democrats and leaders of his Republican Party to discuss a way out of their standoff soon after he strikes down the bill, which ties 124 billion dollars in war funds to a withdrawal that would start on October 1.

http://yahoo.com / AFP/ OccN©

oh boy.. this brings some memories.. :D
http://www.crazyphotos.com/thumbs/thumb_arg1.jpg

They don't need to override the chimp's veto.

Sure they do.

.. short of that needed to override a veto is pure symbolism.They don't need to override the chimp's veto.

The passage of that bill by a margin far short of that needed to override a veto is pure symbolism.

Do you remember Bush landing on the Lincoln, and claiming "Mission Accomplished"?

This is the same sort of stunt, except that Pelosi and Reid don't have an aircraft carrier at their disposal.

Oh quite correct, they can not override the veto.

But it's a far cry from mere symbolism. Bush had an aircraft carrier, Pelosi and Reid have something far more valuable.

The purse strings.

Oh quite correct, they can not override the veto.

But it's a far cry from mere symbolism. Bush had an aircraft carrier, Pelosi and Reid have something far more valuable.

The purse strings.

It isn't appearing to do them any good - any more than the aircraft carrier did.

Sure they do.

Yes and no.

Three things can happen:

1) a bill gets passed with enough support to get by a veto
2) a bill gets passed and then signed
3) no budget gets passed, and the war grinds to a halt

Bush has made it clear he would not sign a bill with a removal date

Pelosi/Reid have made it clear they won't pass a bill without one.

So it seems options 1 and 2 are off the table until some ground is met.

The only alternative is they pack up and go home, as the military budget runs out.

Sure they do.

no they don't. if bush doesn't want to fund the military, that's his prerogative (and good for him too, it's about time we cut the leaches off). by not doing so, of course, he ends the war much sooner.

They don't need to override the chimp's veto.

They are attempting a political move that serve no purpose. The people want to see action in Iraq, not political bickering. All adding a time table to the spending bill did was prove that the American politico cannot accept responsiblity for their actions and strengthen the resolve to those we are trying to defeat.

Yes and no.

Three things can happen:

1) a bill gets passed with enough support to get by a veto
2) a bill gets passed and then signed
3) no budget gets passed, and the war grinds to a halt

Bush has made it clear he would not sign a bill with a removal date

Pelosi/Reid have made it clear they won't pass a bill without one.

So it seems options 1 and 2 are off the table until some ground is met.

The only alternative is they pack up and go home, as the military budget runs out.

And that would fit in with withdrawing, wouldn't it?

So all the democrats need to do is avoid passing a bill that Bush will actually sign, and voila, they've won. And they're not vetoing anything either.

They are attempting a political move that serve no purpose. The people want to see action in Iraq, not political bickering. All adding a time table to the spending bill did was prove that the American politico cannot accept responsiblity for their actions and strengthen the resolve to those we are trying to defeat.

But surely, it serves their entire purpose.

The democrats got into power, partially to end the war.

They are going to do that, one way or another.

It isn't appearing to do them any good - any more than the aircraft carrier did.

Really? Did someone else manage to pass a spending bill?

They are attempting a political move that serve no purpose. The people want to see action in Iraq, not political bickering.

how does ending the imperialist occupation either this summer or next year serve no purpose and not amount to action? those are the two outcomes possible here, and both are wildly popular and morally necessary.

So all the democrats need to do is avoid passing a bill that Bush will actually sign, and voila, they've won.

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

Or, as the budget crunch gets worse, lighten up a little bit, but force bush into taking what he can get, not what he wants.

Really? Did someone else manage to pass a spending bill?

well, bush has been spending a lot of time with the original constitution and a pen...

Really? Did someone else manage to pass a spending bill?

Apparently, they're going to pass the spending after this, and then try again with this issue on another bill.

Bush invited Democrats and leaders of his Republican Party to discuss a way out of their standoff soon after he strikes down the bill
"A way out of their standoff" known to mean "agree with me or I will throw a tantrum and imply you support terrorists."
What Bush fails to realize is that he can't take his toys and go home quite yet but he, or at least some of his people, realize Americans are fucking retarded and will blame the Democrats for "not funding the troops" despite it is Bush shooting down the funding bills because he wants to continue this asinine conflict.

"A way out of their standoff" known to mean "agree with me or I will throw a tantrum and imply you support terrorists."
What Bush fails to realize is that he can't take his toys and go home quite yet but he, or at least some of his people, realize Americans are fucking retarded and will blame the Democrats for "not funding the troops" despite it is Bush shooting down the funding bills because he wants to continue this asinine conflict.

Maybe you should subscribe to Gallup. Then you would know that Congress currently has a lower approval rating on this issue than Bush (33 for them, 38 for Bush).

I think they know they will be blamed, so they're going to blink.

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

Or, as the budget crunch gets worse, lighten up a little bit, but force bush into taking what he can get, not what he wants.actually if the Democrat leaders have any spine it should be more like this:
as the budget crunch gets worse, force bush into bringing the troops home.
.
simpler is better.

Yes, he used those exact words when referring to the spending bill: "Bring it on!" Well played, troll boy. :rolleyes:

Next time you "quote" someone, try using their actual remarks instead of putting words in people's mouths.

Apparently, they're going to pass the spending after this..If they do.. they (current leadership) better never ask for my vote. ever again.

actually he did say "bring it on" some time ago.. Dont you remember?

Way to take shit out of context. I've said "yes" before. That doesn't mean it applies when someone asks me if I eat babies. Try again, troll boy.

Yes, he used those exact words when referring to the spending bill: "Bring it on!" Well played, troll boy. :rolleyes:

Next time you "quote" someone, try using their actual remarks instead of putting words in people's mouths.actually he did say "bring it on" some time ago.. Dont you remember?

Maybe you should subscribe to Gallup. Then you would know that Congress currently has a lower approval rating on this issue than Bush (33 for them, 38 for Bush).

I think they know they will be blamed, so they're going to blink.
Coming from the pinnacle of objectivity on the issue. The Democratic congress doesn't need to appeal to the people that kiss Bush's ass because those arn't the people voting for them. They got in office on Bush's incompetence, why would they bow to it?

Way to take shit out of context. I've said "yes" before. That doesn't mean it applies when someone asks me if I eat babies. Try again, troll boy.

That is what you take issue with on the subject?

Maybe you should subscribe to Gallup. Then you would know that Congress currently has a lower approval rating on this issue than Bush (33 for them, 38 for Bush).

I think they know they will be blamed, so they're going to blink.

blamed for what? accomplishing precisely what the majority of the usian people want done?

Coming from the pinnacle of objectivity on the issue. The Democratic congress doesn't need to appeal to the people that kiss Bush's ass because those arn't the people voting for them. They got in office on Bush's incompetence, why would they bow to it?

Because the people are fickle, and apparently won't support cutting off funding for "the troops".

That's 33% of Americans - not the people who kiss Bush's ass - who think that Congress is doing a good job - compared to 38% of Americans who think Bush is doing a good job - on Iraq.

Maybe you should subscribe to Gallup. Then you would know that Congress currently has a lower approval rating on this issue than Bush (33 for them, 38 for Bush).

I think they know they will be blamed, so they're going to blink.

a grossly misleading statement as it does not in any way account for those who do not approve of congress due to the republican's actions.

Spin it all you want, the majority of americans are in favor of withdrawal (http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/apr/11/poll_more_americans_favor_congress_withholding_funds_in_face_of_veto), and do not want to see a bill passed without a withdrawal date..

Because the people are fickle, and apparently won't support cutting off funding for "the troops".

That's 33% of Americans - not the people who kiss Bush's ass - who think that Congress is doing a good job - compared to 38% of Americans who think Bush is doing a good job - on Iraq.

again, "congress" does not mean "democrats", and many who are unsatisfied with the way congress is going are unsatisfied because of republican opposition.

the LA Times poll also finds that 48% want Bush to sign the bill, while only 43% want him to veto it

Spin that.

a grossly misleading statement as it does not in any way account for those who do not approve of congress due to the republican's actions.

and those that are pissed that the democrats didn't end the war in january. and those that just hate congress on principle/out of tradition.

48% want Bush to sign the bill, while only 43% want him to veto it.
Spin that.ohhh... nice one.

totally burned RemoteObserver.. someone please call the fire dpt. :D

Because the people are fickle, and apparently won't support cutting off funding for "the troops".

That's 33% of Americans - not the people who kiss Bush's ass - who think that Congress is doing a good job - compared to 38% of Americans who think Bush is doing a good job - on Iraq.

Job approval ratings don't say damn thing about issue approval, and unless you've got a different Gallup poll, it doesn't say anything about Iraq.

If you want the most recent numbers on Bush's approval rating for Iraq, I've got 24%, 27%, and a high of 30% from the most recent Iraq issue polls. (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm)

Because the people are fickle, and apparently won't support cutting off funding for "the troops".
Which obviously supports "Americans are retards." The Congress is not only funding the troops but are trying to get them out of Iraq. Where as Bush is threatening to throw a tantrum shoot down that funding because Congress won't let him play with their favorite toy.

That's 33% of Americans - not the people who kiss Bush's ass - who think that Congress is doing a good job - compared to 38% of Americans who think Bush is doing a good job - on Iraq.
Which is of course why Democrats won the majority as opposed to Bush asskissing Republicans.

All adding a time table to the spending bill did was prove that the American politico cannot accept responsiblity for their actions and strengthen the resolve to those we are trying to defeat.

oh yes because we're trying to defeat someone. oh wait, wasn't our mission to restore order, not sit in a quagmire wasting lives while hardcore bigots grouch about the dimming ethics of liberty and emancipation.

Bush doesn't want to fund the troops!!!1

If you want the most recent numbers on Bush's approval rating for Iraq, I've got 24%, 27%, and a high of 30% from the most recent Iraq issue polls. (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm)message to RemoteObserver:
poll numbers are so much more meaningful when a link is provided ;)

Bush doesn't want to fund the troops!!!1Bush is asking for a-no-strings-attached shit-load of money.. from US taxpayers.. for his Shiite War.

He has been getting that for years..
But -luckily- it looks like it is over.

how does ending the imperialist occupation either this summer or next year serve no purpose and not amount to action? those are the two outcomes possible here, and both are wildly popular and morally necessary.


It will get our troops out of Iraq, but are we willing to accept responsiblity for the repercussions of us leaving?

Do you really believe that our troops leaving is going to magically end all the sectarian fighting going on over there?

Can we really be that niave?

I pray we aren't

Sure, our troops are the reason the terrorists are killing people, but our troop are all that stand between unrest, and civil war in Iraq.

We caused this problem by invading in the first place, and it is our responsibility to remain there until we correct our mistake. Leaving does not do that, in only creates a new situation, which is going to cost us far more in the end.

Are we prepared to see the entire middle east collapse into war. This is the largest source of oil for the globe at the moment.

oh yes because we're trying to defeat someone. oh wait, wasn't our mission to restore order, not sit in a quagmire wasting lives while hardcore bigots grouch about the dimming ethics of liberty and emancipation.

No, our mission was to take out Sadam Hussien which we did.

But now that we are stuck in a quagmire, now that we have taken down Saddam's sovereign government, we need to understand that pulling otu solves nothing. Our troops are the only thing keeping Iraq from falling into an all out civil war, and none of us can afford for that to happen.

The Saudi government has already admitted that they would support the Sunnis in the event of Civil War. And if you think the Iran isn't going to through its support behind the Shiites you are sadly mistaken. And since Iran is involved, you can guarentee that Syria will not be far behind. Egypt will no doubt throw its own support into the fray too. Such as event is not something our economy can handle, the oil in the Middle East is far too important.

We caused this problem by invading in the first place, and it is our responsibility to remain there until we correct our mistake.

fuck that paternalistic bullshit. nobody but the authoritarian fucktards are benefiting from our being there, and the iraqi people want us out.

No, our mission was to take out Sadam Hussien which we did.

But now that we are stuck in a quagmire, now that we have taken down Saddam's sovereign government, we need to understand that pulling otu solves nothing. Our troops are the only thing keeping Iraq from falling into an all out civil war, and none of us can afford for that to happen.

The Saudi government has already admitted that they would support the Sunnis in the event of Civil War. And if you think the Iran isn't going to through its support behind the Shiites you are sadly mistaken. And since Iran is involved, you can guarentee that Syria will not be far behind. Egypt will no doubt throw its own support into the fray too. Such as event is not something our economy can handle, the oil in the Middle East is far too important.
Too bad for us. What we get for fucking around over there and leaving Afghanistan unfinished.

Didn't Bush say that we would leave when asked by the Iraqi govt? They said they wanted a timeline for us to be out, so why isn't Bush making good on his promise? Oh right, because he's a lying creep.

fuck that paternalistic bullshit. nobody but the authoritarian fucktards are benefiting from our being there, and the iraqi people want us out.


There you are wrong. The fact is that some of the Iraqis want us out, while other believe it would be much worse if we left. Like those of us here, they, too, are divided on the issue.

There you are wrong. The fact is that some of the Iraqis want us out, while other believe it would be much worse if we left. Like those of us here, they, too, are divided on the issue.

some = 70+%. this number has been consistent for years. it jumps even higher if we exclude the kurds. so if we really want to stay, we should just establish kurdistan, and set up some bases there.

It will get our troops out of Iraq.hell yeah.


Sure, our troops are the reason the terrorists are killing people..indeed.

but our troop are all that stand between unrest, and civil war in Iraq..our troops cant even secure Bagdad.. heck they cant even secure the Iraqi Congress (Legislature)


We caused this problem by invading in the first place..No shiite.

Leaving ... only creates a new situation, which is going to cost us far more in the end.staying ... only postpones the inevitable. The new situation (whatever that is) is going to happen.. sooner or later.

but are we willing to accept responsiblity for the repercussions..are you kidding me? We are going to dump -wholesale- responsibility for the War on the Iraqis.

some = 70+%. this number has been consistent for years. it jumps even higher if we exclude the kurds. so if we really want to stay, we should just establish kurdistan, and set up some bases there. That's the most sensible option, besides it will convince the Turks from invading.

But now that we are stuck in a quagmire, now that we have taken down Saddam's sovereign government, we need to understand that pulling otu solves nothing. Our troops are the only thing keeping Iraq from falling into an all out civil war, and none of us can afford for that to happen.

Our troops arn't preventing anything. It will get there without or without American lives on the line. It is already devolving into Civil War, and has been for a while.

Dems: You can have this funding, but only with an end date to the war.

Bush: What?! No way, I'm not taking any end-date crap. Fuck you, Democrats!

Dems: Well then, guess you can just try to get the funds from some other congress around here...

That's the most sensible option, besides it will convince the Turks from invading.

I agree. We should withdraw. Withdraw to the Kurdish areas, that is.

It isn't quite an end date to the war; it only sets a timetable for scaledown of troops. Troops could still be kept in the region at the president's perogative for four possible reasons, including fighting directly against Al Queda. But it does proposed a phased withdrawal that is in rough accordance with the findings of the Iraq Study Group, and it proposes doing (basing our actions on the comittment of the Maliki regime) what Bush has been talking about for years (remember "As they stand up, we'll stand down"? Anyone?).

And as a side note, if passing a bill that will only be vetoed is a waste of time, why bother with a Congress at all? Clearly, our founding fathers had a fondness for paper-pushing and bureaucracy that just won't cut it in our post- 9/11 world.

Yeesh.

This whole thing reminds me of this Rome tv series in which Julius Caesar kept using his Consul veto against legislation from the Senate, he eventually got stabbed about 200x on the senate floor by his enemies and died...

You know what, if I were in congress I would make a speech on the floor, stating that I would support any funding, for any period, for as long as this administration wishes to continue this war. On one condition.

Funding will begin the moment that children of Bush, Cheney, and all the congress people that voted against the timetable enlist in the military, and will only continue as long as they remain on active duty on the front lines.

This whole thing reminds me of this Rome tv series in which Julius Caesar kept using his Consul veto against legislation from the Senate, he eventually got stabbed about 200x on the senate floor by his enemies and died...
So... uhm... who's Brutus?

Anyway, I saw your president doing this (http://www.spiegel.de/videoplayer/0,6298,17781,00.html) during the day and what can I say?
He could really improve his moves.

Dance! Muahahaha.

It isn't quite an end date to the war; it only sets a timetable for scaledown of troops. Troops could still be kept in the region at the president's perogative for four possible reasons, including fighting directly against Al Queda. But it does proposed a phased withdrawal that is in rough accordance with the findings of the Iraq Study Group, and it proposes doing (basing our actions on the comittment of the Maliki regime) what Bush has been talking about for years (remember "As they stand up, we'll stand down"? Anyone?).

And as a side note, if passing a bill that will only be vetoed is a waste of time, why bother with a Congress at all? Clearly, our founding fathers had a fondness for paper-pushing and bureaucracy that just won't cut it in our post- 9/11 world.

Yeesh.

I know, I know. But my little dialogue worked better with more concise wording.

You know what, if I were in congress I would make a speech on the floor, stating that I would support any funding, for any period, for as long as this administration wishes to continue this war. On one condition.

Funding will begin the moment that children of Bush, Cheney, and all the congress people that voted against the timetable enlist in the military, and will only continue as long as they remain on active duty on the front lines.

Niiiiiiiiiiiice!

You know what, if I were in congress I would make a speech on the floor, stating that I would support any funding, for any period, for as long as this administration wishes to continue this war. On one condition.

Funding will begin the moment that children of Bush, Cheney, and all the congress people that voted against the timetable enlist in the military, and will only continue as long as they remain on active duty on the front lines.

Or maybe, they could try soldiering themselves.

Wonder how that would go (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bush_bravely_leads_3rd_infantry)...

So... uhm... who's Brutus?

Anyway, I saw your president doing this (http://www.spiegel.de/videoplayer/0,6298,17781,00.html) during the day and what can I say?
He could really improve his moves.

Dance! Muahahaha.

God. Race relations got that much better! :D

God. Race relations got that much better! :D

Cheney raps, McCain sings on radio, Bush dances.

What The Fuck is getting handed round at Republican meetings these days?
and can I have some?

It's obvious the Democrats are doing this because all they can do is spit vile two-faced comments about our service men and women; they hold no backbone to go through with their threat of actually pulling the troops out by cutting funding. Instead they put that stupid timetable in there because they know Bush will veto it because he is use to getting his way like a good little dictator. By doing this it becomes his fault, essentially, and not theirs.

Bush should accept the terms, stop acting like a little kid not getting his way and let the rest of America know who is really at fault for tieing the hands of our Armed Forces. Because we can all figure it out anyways.

This kind of pussy-footing horse shit is why I hate Liberal Democrats more than I hate Conservative Republicans. We need statesmen in office, not politicians.

It's obvious the Democrats are doing this because all they can do is spit vile two-faced comments about our service men and women; they hold no backbone to go through with their threat of actually pulling the troops out by cutting funding. Instead they put that stupid timetable in there because they know Bush will veto it because he is use to getting his way like a good little dictator. By doing this it becomes his fault, essentially, and not theirs.

Bush should accept the terms, stop acting like a little kid not getting his way and let the rest of America know who is really at fault for tieing the hands of our Armed Forces. Because we can all figure it out anyways.

This kind of pussy-footing horse shit is why I hate Liberal Democrats more than I hate Conservative Republicans. We need statesmen in office, not politicians.

Yes, because it is the Democrats who lie and 'forget' and never fulfill a promise. :rolleyes:

Mission Accomplished
Stand down when they stand up
When the Iraqi people want us to leave
WMDs
Yellow cake
Iraq study group
Mandate of the people

Cheney raps, McCain sings on radio, Bush dances.

What The Fuck is getting handed round at Republican meetings these days?
and can I have some?

Maybe if they did a little more, they'd stop all the warring and raid the fridge instead. ;)

Maybe if they did a little more, they'd stop all the warring and raid the fridge instead. ;)

Not quite - they'd raid other people's fridges.

Not quite - they'd raid other people's fridges.

:eek:

Ah, well. I can live with that. :p

It will get our troops out of Iraq, but are we willing to accept responsiblity for the repercussions of us leaving? Let's just cut the authoritarian shit already.

Explain the pro's and con's of staying vs. withdrawing, in a clear, concise, non-emotional, non-religious manner.

I'm a uniter, not a divider. I'm the Decider. Stop hatin', or we'll send you to gitmo.

They don't need to override the chimp's veto.

Actually yes they do OcceanDrive. And we all know that the votes are not there to override it. Hence why it got out of the Senate.

The purse strings.

Which is quite funny in this case since the PResident has to sign off on that :D

But surely, it serves their entire purpose.

The democrats got into power, partially to end the war.

They are going to do that, one way or another.

At the expense of the US Military. That is not going to go over very well with the Military nor with alot of people of this country.

Bush doesn't want to fund the troops!!!1

Neither does this Democratic Congress either it looks like.

Bush is asking for a-no-strings-attached shit-load of money.. from US taxpayers.. for his Shiite War.

Shi'ite war? WOW! Since when have we supported one group over another?

He has been getting that for years..
But -luckily- it looks like it is over.

Not really though in 2009 it is.

fuck that paternalistic bullshit. nobody but the authoritarian fucktards are benefiting from our being there, and the iraqi people want us out.

You are right but then, how come the Iraqi government (who also want us out) has not told us to get out of the country?

:eek:

Ah, well. I can live with that. :p

What if they bomb your house, imprison you and steal all your mud...just to raid your fridge?

What if they bomb your house, imprison you and steal all your mud...just to raid your fridge?

Then the Clown Uprising would begin. Need I say more? :)

This bill had one purpose: to get "on the record" Democratic opposition to the war. Democratic candidates want to be able to run campaign ads that say "I voted to end this war".

On the other side of the coin, Bush would like nothing better than to have his inevitable veto over-turned. That way, the failure in Iraq could be blamed on the Democrats. Unfortunately for Bush, the Dems don't have a chance at over-turning. If they did, they never would have passed the bill in the first place.

It's complete B.S. from both sides of the aisle.

Actually yes they do OcceanDrive. And we all know that the votes are not there to override it. it was explained over and over why they do not need to override the chimp's veto.
Just read the thread..

Then the Clown Uprising would begin. Need I say more? :)

But they've got trained attack mimes.

Neither does this Democratic Congress either it looks like.

It's political hardball. Can't take the heat? Stay out of the kitchen.

The Democrats are doing what the people told them to, trying to end the war. Either the war gets funded but has to end, or it doesn't get funded and doesn't continue. Bush really should have seen this one coming. It'll be interesting to see how he gets out of it.

it was explained over and over why they do not need to override the chimp's veto.
Just read the thread..

I have read the thread. If they do not pass a budget for the military, more than just the war in Iraq is going to ground to a halt. The whole military structure is going to grind to a halt and that includes training.

It's political hardball. Can't take the heat? Stay out of the kitchen.

The Democrats are doing what the people told them to, trying to end the war. Either the war gets funded but has to end, or it doesn't get funded and doesn't continue. Bush really should have seen this one coming. It'll be interesting to see how he gets out of it.

It will be interesting how both parties deal with this as the Military is the one stuck in the middle between the Republicans who want to fund them and the Democrats that want to fund them but were stupid to put it in funding bill.

Wether they want us there or not the democraticlly elected government of Iraq has not asked us to leave. And although i didn't support the war in the first place i do not want us to leave until we make things better or the Iraqi government asks us to leave, whichever comes first.

Contrary to how some media sources are making it sound like, this bill isn't just Iraq war funding. Only about 100 billion dollars of it is for the war, the rest of it is for other things in the military so the democrats cannot let no funding go through or they lose their advantage going in '08. The republicans started the war so they are at a disadvatange, but if the democrats can't finish the war without hurting other parts of the military then they lose their advantage

Contrary to how some media sources are making it sound like, this bill isn't just Iraq war funding. Only about 100 billion dollars of it is for the war, the rest of it is for other things in the military so the democrats cannot let no funding go through or they lose their advantage going in '08. The republicans started the war so they are at a disadvatange, but if the democrats can't finish the war without hurting other parts of the military then they lose their advantage

Well said.

Wether they want us there or not the democraticlly elected government of Iraq has not asked us to leave. And although i didn't support the war in the first place i do not want us to leave until we make things better or the Iraqi government asks us to leave, whichever comes first.

Working with Bush logic, eh?

Bush, who claimed he had a 'mandate' from the people when he lost both houses, said it was the will of the people.

70% of Iraqis want us to leave.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=78921
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1599185,00.html

Working with Bush logic, eh?

Bush, who claimed he had a 'mandate' from the people when he lost both houses, said it was the will of the people.

70% of Iraqis want us to leave.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=78921
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1599185,00.html

The point of the matter is, the GOVERNMENT has not asked us to leave. That is the crux of the matter.

Working with Bush logic, eh?

Bush, who claimed he had a 'mandate' from the people when he lost both houses, said it was the will of the people.

70% of Iraqis want us to leave.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=78921
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1599185,00.html

If this issue is a vote decider for enough Iraqis then they will vote out the current government that has not asked us to leave. And if that has happened the party that was voted into power on a policy of asking us to leave, will ask us to leave, and we will leave. Simple enough.

Until then either the current government changes their mind which i don't believe they will or we try and find a way to fix the situation.

But they've got trained attack mimes.

So they think. We have come to an understanding with the Mime community. *nod* ;)

Why is the budget part of American government so crappy. I'm sure most countries have in place legislation that states in the case of a budget not being passed then the previous budget is used as a temporary measure to cover any funding emergencies until a new budget is passed...

Anyway, all the democrats really need to do is give bush some disease that will keep him bed-riden for about two weeks and then pass the bill again. Seeing as the President will not return the bill to congress within 10 days, stating his objections to the bill, then the bill will become law. :)

the democraticlly elected government of Iraq has not asked us to leave.(even if 70% of Iraqis wants US to leave) The point of the matter is, the (democraticlly elected) government of Iraq has not asked us to leave. That is the crux of the matter.LOL..

Some idiots do actually think that Bush was also democratically elected in 2000..

Why is the budget part of American government so crappy. I'm sure most countries have in place legislation that states in the case of a budget not being passed then the previous budget is used as a temporary measure to cover any funding emergencies until a new budget is passed...

Anyway, all the democrats really need to do is give bush some disease that will keep him bed-riden for about two weeks and then pass the bill again. Seeing as the President will not return the bill to congress within 10 days, stating his objections to the bill, then the bill will become law. :)

If the President was unable to carry out his duties then the Vice President would be acting President during that time, and he would veto the bill. Because the only thing that could stop Bush from vetoing this bill would be some kind of disease that knocked him our or made him insane, in which case the VP would do it.

LOL..

Some idiots do actually think that Bush was also democratically elected in 2000..Oh... he was democratically elected, it just that the masses didn't vote the way they were supposed to, so the electoral college did a bit of jiggling and Al Gore was given a lobotomy, and then the correct results finally emrged and democracy triumphed once again.

If the President was unable to carry out his duties then the Vice President would be acting President during that time, and he would veto the bill. Because the only thing that could stop Bush from vetoing this bill would be some kind of disease that knocked him our or made him insane, in which case the VP would do it.You mean Cheney? To get him out of the picture all the democrats would have to do is get some deers to walk past his window, then followed by some lawyers and have him charged with assault. There's probably a provision that says you cannot exercise the powers of the executive whilst under arrest.

Anyway, all the democrats really need to do is give bush some disease that will keep him bed-riden for about two weeks and then pass the bill again. Seeing as the President will not return the bill to congress within 10 days, stating his objections to the bill, then the bill will become law. :)

I thought a veto consisted of not signing the bill? That's what my elementary civics books told me...They had a picture of the president signing a bill, and then under veto they had a picture of the president standing over on the other side of the room.

I thought a veto consisted of not signing the bill? That's what my elementary civics books told me...They had a picture of the president signing a bill, and then under veto they had a picture of the president standing over on the other side of the room.There are conditions to the veto. The president cannot just not the sign the billl (argh double -tive), he has to state his reasons for not signing the bill in writing to congress as well, and within 1o days as well. If he fails to do that then the bill becomes law. Just like how a bill passed by a two thirds majority in both houses cannot be vetoed.

There are conditions to the veto. The president cannot just not the sign the billl (argh double -tive), he has to state his reasons for not signing the bill in writing to congress. If he fails to do that then the bill becomes law. Just like how a bill passed by a two thirds majority in both houses cannot be vetoed.

Ah...That should really be mentioned at some point in school...

You know what the outcome of this should be?

The democrats should keep trying to pass their bill, failing at every turn because of a veto and eventually losing support :p

Bush, representing the republicans, should keep vetoing their bill, succeeding at every turn, but eventually losing support as he isn't doing anymore action than the democrats.

Then the american people should realize the bullshit of the whole situation and vote in a third party in 2008 :D

well, bush has been spending a lot of time with the original constitution and a bottle of white-out...

Corrected and reposted.

Oh... he was democratically elected.he was elected by the Republican Supremes.

I can only call it a Democracy -or democratically elected President- if the votes get to be fully recounted and all possible fraud fully verified. (specially if its a close call like Florida2000)

LOL..

Some idiots do actually think that Bush was also democratically elected in 2000..

Do you have a point to make?

he was elected by the Republican Supremes.

I can only call it a Democracy -or democratically elected President- if the votes get to be fully recounted and all possible fraud fully verified. (specially if its a close call like Florida2000)

You do realize that the Press did go down to Florida and did recounted all of the votes? You do realize that the NYT on the back page even stated that Bush won Florida legitamently?

You do realize that the Press did go down to Florida and did recounted all of the votes? You do realize that the NYT on the back page even stated that Bush won Florida legitamently?"Bush won Florida legitamently"

sounds about right. :D

"Bush won Florida legitamently"

sounds about right. :D

Go ahead and ignore the facts. It's what a fool like you does best.

"Bush won Florida legitamently"

sounds about right. :D

Do not blame me for reporting what the media has reported on.

Do you have a point to make?its all there.. it says: Bush was appointed president by the Republican Supremes.

read the thread dude.. read the thread. ;)

its all there.. it says: Bush was appointed president by the Republican Supremes.

read the thread dude.. read the thread. ;)

Is there a point as to why you stated it because the facts show that Bush won the state?

<< I can only call it a Democracy -or democratically elected President- if the votes get to be fully recounted and all possible fraud fully verified.>>

Actually, you can only really call a President democratically elected if you first get rid of the Electoral College. So long as only the Electoral votes matter for who is determined to be the new President, none of the rest of our votes mean diddly. Our Presidents are elected by what? 300something people?

Go ahead and ignore the facts. The facts are simple:

pre#1 (No big deal as this is usually a 4 years job) Just like Gonzales was appointed US Attorney General by a Bush...

#1 Most Supremes have been appointed by the Republican Presidents. These are Life time. (like kings)

#2 Bush was appointed President by these Republican Supremes.

<< I can only call it a Democracy -or democratically elected President- if the votes get to be fully recounted and all possible fraud fully verified.>>

Actually, you can only really call a President democratically elected if you first get rid of the Electoral College. So long as only the Electoral votes matter for who is determined to be the new President, none of the rest of our votes mean diddly. Our Presidents are elected by what? 300something people?

since one needs 270 electoral votes, I say the number is higher than 300 something. Try 538.

<< since one needs 270 electoral votes, I say the number is higher than 300 something. >>

:::watches the point go sailing over Lancaster's head:::

The facts are simple:

#1 just like Gonzales was appointed Attorney General by a Republican president. (No big deal as this is usually a 4 years job)

Approved by the Senate

#2 Most Supremes have been appointed by the Republican Presidents. These are Life time. (like kings)

Not all of them approved by a Republican Controled Senate.

#3 Bush was appointed President by this Republican Supremes

Media recount proves Bush Won Florida.

<< since one needs 270 electoral votes, I say the number is higher than 300 something. >>

:::watches the point go sailing over Lancaster's head:::

Sorry but your number was way wrong so that had to be pointed out. That is assuming if Utah does not gain a seat in Congress.

You do realize that the Press did go down to Florida and did recounted all of the votes? You do realize that the NYT on the back page even stated that Bush won Florida legitamently?

you mean when they found that a statewide recount using either the established county standards or any other reasonable standard resulted in gore winning?

you mean when they found that a statewide recount using either the established county standards or any other reasonable standard resulted in gore winning?

NY Times reported the opposite so I am going to have to ask you to prove it because if that was indeed true, the press would have been all over it and I know that it was not.

<< Sorry but your number was way wrong so that had to be pointed out. That is assuming if Utah does not gain a seat in Congress. >>

No, no it wasn't. At most, it was off by 300 and in a country of 300 MILLION, 300 is trivial. My point still stands.

<< Sorry but your number was way wrong so that had to be pointed out. That is assuming if Utah does not gain a seat in Congress. >>

No, no it wasn't. At most, it was off by 300 and in a country of 300 MILLION, 300 is trivial. My point still stands.

I am not going to quibble with you over numbers because it is not worth the effort. You also have to remember that nearly all the time, the states vote for the candidate that won their state so in essence...

<< I am not going to quibble with you over numbers because it is not worth the effort. You also have to remember that nearly all the time, the states vote for the candidate that won their state so in essence... >>

It's the "nearly all the time." that is the problem. So long as the Electors do not have to vote the way of the States, no vote in any State matters. If they are eventually required to vote the way of the State, then the Electors do not matter. Either way, the Electoral College needs to go and the President needs to be elected by the majority vote of the people.

Go ahead and ignore the facts. It's what a fool like you does best.It all depends how you define legitimate.

The idea of halting a recount is inconcieveable to me. You either recount until you're blue in the face or call a new election where the vote is challenged. Silly Americans and your deadlines, and your insistence that your presidents serve precise terms.

<< I am not going to quibble with you over numbers because it is not worth the effort. You also have to remember that nearly all the time, the states vote for the candidate that won their state so in essence... >>

It's the "nearly all the time." that is the problem. So long as the Electors do not have to vote the way of the States, no vote in any State matters. If they are eventually required to vote the way of the State, then the Electors do not matter. Either way, the Electoral College needs to go and the President needs to be elected by the majority vote of the people.

You do know that some states have laws against faithless electors I hope. To bad all states do not have such laws.

I'm just really pissed off at my government for playing dice with our soldiers lives. I'm more pissed off at the Democrats though for using our soldiers lives to further their political agenda, how low can you get, I mean honestly to invest in the defeat of your country, and to use our brave men and women's lives and health as a bartering tool, it is totally beyond anything I could ever fathom and I hope Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi get hit by a truck just for that.

But, I really think it will come back to bite them in the ass in 08' because I would say the majority of people in the U.S. are in disbelief they would hold off funding to get their way, if they 'care more about the troops then the President and want to bring our children home'

It all depends how you define legitimate.

The idea of halting a recount is inconcieveable to me. You either recount until you're blue in the face or call a new election where the vote is challenged. Silly Americans and your deadlines, and your insistence that your presidents serve precise terms.

That is what the law is for. Alot of these deadlines are in the Constitution of my country. A continuation of the recount would have put Florida over the deadline. Sometimes I think it would have been better to just throw out their vote and let the House decide who is President.

I'm just really pissed off at my government for playing dice with our soldiers lives. I'm more pissed off at the Democrats though for using our soldiers lives to further their political agenda, how low can you get, I mean honestly to invest in the defeat of your country, and to use our brave men and women's lives and health as a bartering tool, it is totally beyond anything I could ever fathom and I hope Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi get hit by a truck just for that.

But, I really think it will come back to bite them in the ass in 08' because I would say the majority of people in the U.S. are in disbelief they would hold off funding to get their way, if they 'care more about the troops then the President and want to bring our children home'

I believe you are correct that it will bite them if the Democrats do not drop the timetable. Cut spending to the wars yes but setting a timetable? no.

<< I am not going to quibble with you over numbers because it is not worth the effort. You also have to remember that nearly all the time, the states vote for the candidate that won their state so in essence... >>

It's the "nearly all the time." that is the problem. So long as the Electors do not have to vote the way of the States, no vote in any State matters. If they are eventually required to vote the way of the State, then the Electors do not matter. Either way, the Electoral College needs to go and the President needs to be elected by the majority vote of the people.
The electoral college is there to make sure the minority has just as much say as the majority, and that mob rule does not control the country, it is ingeniuos and I am pretty sure the greatest thinkers of their time knew what the hell they were talking about when they instituted it. The U.S. is a Democratic-Republic, not a pure democracy. Pure democracy cannot work in large numbers (i.e. ancient greece, the demagouge and mob rule) and pure republics become corrupt and fail (i.e. Rome).

That is what the law is for. Alot of these deadlines are in the Constitution of my country. A continuation of the recount would have put Florida over the deadline. Sometimes I think it would have been better to just throw out their vote and let the House decide who is President.Why do you need a deadline? Does the country suddenly lose the ability to govern itself after a certain day?

The US has a penchant for deadlines, like how the government begins to collapse if a budget isn't passed by a particular day. It's all like 'the sky is falling' hysteria. Would is really have killed the US to say 'hey, let's just keep Clinton as acting president until we get a consistent result for Florida's vote count'.

Why do you need a deadline? Does the country suddenly lose the ability to govern itself after a certain day?

Since the President is sworn in in Janurary and the Congress ratifies the elections, there has to be a deadline. As to the last part, that I cannot easily answer.

The US has a penchant for deadlines, like how the government begins to collapse if a budget isn't passed by a particular day.

Do not remind me of that. My family was affected when that occured.

It's all like 'the sky is falling' hysteria. Would is really have killed the US to say 'hey, let's just keep Clinton as acting president until we get a consistent result for Florida's vote count'.

That would be unconstitutional.

Since the President is sworn in in Janurary and the Congress ratifies the elections, there has to be a deadline.

Now, some of you might ask "Why does he have to be sworn in then?"

Well, I'll tell you. Because the galaxy is only aligned in a manner conducive to swearing-in during January. The cosmic energies simply aren't in phase during any other month.

Now, some of you might ask "Why does he have to be sworn in then?"

Well, I'll tell you. Because the galaxy is only aligned in a manner conducive to swearing-in during that month. The cosmic energies simply aren't in phase during any other month.

Now that is funny.

The electoral college is there to make sure the minority has just as much say as the majority, and that mob rule does not control the country, it is ingeniuos and I am pretty sure the greatest thinkers of their time knew what the hell they were talking about when they instituted it. The U.S. is a Democratic-Republic, not a pure democracy. Pure democracy cannot work in large numbers (i.e. ancient greece, the demagouge and mob rule) and pure republics become corrupt and fail (i.e. Rome).My ancestors are dead, but I'm still alive. Obviously I must be better than my ancestors.

The electoral college system sucks balls. Just precisely which minorities does it protect? Besides the Congress system would be a better way of protecting minorities. One house representing each state equally, and one house representing each citizen equally (or as equally as possible).

The electoral college system was designed when the fastest way to communicate was by horse courier, and not by simply picking up the telephone. Things have changed and the system is outdated.

Why do you need a deadline? Does the country suddenly lose the ability to govern itself after a certain day?For the Country it was more important to make sure there is no irregularities on the Vote counting..

For Bush and the Republican Supremes it was "We must seize this moment and deliver (http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,,417622,00.html)"

NY Times reported the opposite so I am going to have to ask you to prove it because if that was indeed true, the press would have been all over it and I know that it was not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount

Ok now for a real link please?

For the Country it was more important to make sure there is no irregularities on the Vote counting..

For Bush and the Republican Supremes it was "We must seize this moment and deliver (http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,,417622,00.html)"Haha, I like that. :)

Ok now for a real link please?

You like NYT?

According to the NY Times, the Palm Beach County Butterfly ballot cost Gore a net 6286 votes, and the Duval County 2 page ballot cost him a net 1999 votes, each of which would have made the difference by itself

http://www.nytimes.com/images/2001/11/12/politics/recount/design.html

You like NYT?



http://www.nytimes.com/images/2001/11/12/politics/recount/design.html

That I already know so how does that prove that Gore won Florida? It does not. I am talking about actual votes FOR GORE. Not about a confused ballot that was designed by a Democrat and placed in the papers prior to the november election.

That I already know so how does that prove that Gore won Florida?

...By having more people vote for him?

...By having more people vote for him?

But they did not do so. Was there ballot confusion? I am not going to deny that but people should have been more careful when it comes to actually voting and making sure that their vote actually registered. However you cannot count the votes for another person to who they believed the voter intended to vote.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1095
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/opinion/22krugman.html?ex=1282363200&en=c7aaefc93af77494&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011217/vidal

the only way bush comes out ahead is through trivially unfair partial recounts. it was these scenarios that the msm used to headline their reports, rather than the actual results of a full recount. those bits were buried deep in the articles. so after like 4 or 5 paragraphs of "bush winz!" you get things like the following (from the nyt article you are probably thinking of):

"But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions...found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots"

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1095
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/opinion/22krugman.html?ex=1282363200&en=c7aaefc93af77494&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011217/vidal

the only way bush comes out ahead is through trivially unfair partial recounts. it was these scenarios that the msm used to headline their reports, rather than the actual results of a full recount. those bits were buried deep in the articles. so after like 4 or 5 paragraphs of "bush winz!" you get things like the following (from the nyt article you are probably thinking of):

"But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions...found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots"

And that is the key phrase. "Might have won." It is good that they have that phrase in there for no one will really knows who would have won in a full statewide recount.

NY Times reported the opposite so I am going to have to ask you to prove it because if that was indeed true, the press would have been all over it and I know that it was not.

I'm afraid I have to divert your attention to the fact that the media is a company. Money speaks more than Fairness. Besides there were better things on TV.

And that is the key phrase. "Might have won." It is good that they have that phrase in there for no one will really knows who would have won in a full statewide recount.

corny, you lost. just fucking surrender already.

<< You do know that some states have laws against faithless electors I hope. To bad all states do not have such laws. >>

Yes. And I also know that States can't regulate Federal issues. This means that very likely any faithless Electors that break State laws would not be able to be prosocuted and their faithless vote would go to the person they voted for.

<< The electoral college is there to make sure the minority has just as much say as the majority, and that mob rule does not control the country, it is ingeniuos and I am pretty sure the greatest thinkers of their time knew what the hell they were talking about when they instituted it. The U.S. is a Democratic-Republic, not a pure democracy. Pure democracy cannot work in large numbers (i.e. ancient greece, the demagouge and mob rule) and pure republics become corrupt and fail (i.e. Rome). >>

If that is the goal, then it fails miserably. 1) The President is elected by 1/500,000 of the population of the U.S. 2) Assuming that there are no faithless Electors, it takes most of the midwest to equal California alone.

As for a pure Democracy not working. You are only half right. A Democracy was impossible in ancient Greece, and even in the early days of the U.S. This is not the case any longer. With the time changing, and technology improving, it is not only feasible to gather the individual votes of the entire Nation, but the Nation is kept in the loop as to who the candidates are and what they stand for. The Electoral College is outdated and now harms the U.S., not helps it.

corny, you lost. just fucking surrender already.

Who?

Yes, because it is the Democrats who lie and 'forget' and never fulfill a promise. :rolleyes:

Mission Accomplished
Stand down when they stand up
When the Iraqi people want us to leave
WMDs
Yellow cake
Iraq study group
Mandate of the people

Never said the Republicans were better. Only that Liberal policies piss me off more than Conservative ones. Though there are Conservative policies in place that piss me off too. You try to misrepresent me. That's not very nice :rolleyes: Is that your strategy for getting your point of view across?

The passage of that bill by a margin far short of that needed to override a veto is pure symbolism.

Do you remember Bush landing on the Lincoln, and claiming "Mission Accomplished"?

This is the same sort of stunt, except that Pelosi and Reid don't have an aircraft carrier at their disposal.

First off, Republicans aren't in a position to complain about symbolic legislation. Flag-burning, Terry Schiavo, Stem Cell research...

Republicans complaining about symbolic legislation is like Republicans complaining about deficit spending.

Democrats were elected because Americans are sick of the war. They owe it to the people to show that they oppose the war as much as their numbers will allow. If they didn't do this then Republicans would just say "why bother voting for Democrats? They won't end the war either." At least this way Dems can say, "we already tried to end it, if you put more of us in office, we'll actually be able to stop these madmen because we'll have the votes."

Never said the Republicans were better. Only that Liberal policies piss me off more than Conservative ones. Though there are Conservative policies in place that piss me off too. You try to misrepresent me. That's not very nice :rolleyes: Is that your strategy for getting your point of view across?

Perhaps your arguments would be easier to address if you pointed out what pisses you off about health care and civil rights so much more than corporate socialism and pointless wars that kill hundreds of thousands of people while flushing our national security down the toilet?

Never said the Republicans were better. Only that Liberal policies piss me off more than Conservative ones. Though there are Conservative policies in place that piss me off too. You try to misrepresent me. That's not very nice :rolleyes: Is that your strategy for getting your point of view across?

You came off as pretending to be a moderate Republican. What can I say.

blamed for what? accomplishing precisely what the majority of the usian people want done?

Where's usia?

Where's usia?

it starts across the bering straight from asia

it starts across the bering straight from asia

Funny, I can't find it on any map...

Gee, what a surprise. President Bush's entire Presidency can be summed up in sound bites.

"Bring it on"

"Stay the Course"

"It's Hard Work"

"Mission Accomplished"

Among others. Do they spoon feed him other things too?

A worthless President with no character, morals or ethics, despite protestations otherwise.

Ladies and gentlemen of NSG.. welcome to the all NEW
high-stakes game of chicken (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0430/p01s01-uspo.html)

where each side waits for the other to blink. :D
.


Tension rises in Washington. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0430/p01s01-uspo.html)

April 30, 2007
Washington - The Democrats ... are waiting until May 1 – the four-year anniversary of President Bush's "mission accomplished" speech on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln.

It's a signal of the drama about to unfold on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue as lawmakers and the White House figure out what to do after a veto. Increasingly, the most likely scenario looks like a high-stakes game of chicken where each side waits for the other to blink.

Yahoo / CSM / OccNEWS©2003-2007

Ladies and gentlemen of NSG.. welcome to the all NEW
high-stakes game of chicken (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0430/p01s01-uspo.html)

where each side waits for the other to blink. :D
.

And you know who is going to blink first? The Democrats. You know why? Because they would be held responsible for not funding the troops.

And you know who is going to blink first? The Democrats. You know why? Because they would be held responsible for not funding the troops.The (some 43%) republicans would hold them responsible if they do stand thier ground.

The (some 48%) democrats would hold them responsible if they Dont.

They know what to do.. if they want to be reelected.

( the 43-48%.. is from a national poll asking the voters if they want Bush to veto the spending bill.)

The (some 43%) republicans would hold them responsible if they do stand thier ground.

The (some 48%) democrats would hold them responsible if they Dont.

They know what to do.. if they want to be reelected.

( the 43-48%.. is from a national poll asking the voters if they want Bush to sign-or-veto.)

Vote for a military spending bill is what is going to get them re-elected. We do not need a repeat of what happened the last time a budget was not passed!

*shudders*

Vote for a military spending bill is what is going to get them re-elected.So that is how it works?
US military spending is the sacred Cow of Amerika?

And you know who is going to blink first? The Democrats. You know why? Because they would be held responsible for not funding the troops.
You assume that stupid people who believe stupid bullshit like that (Republicans and conservatives) vote Democrat.

You assume that stupid people who believe stupid bullshit like that (Republicans and conservatives) vote Democrat.

Stupid people will vote for whoever they want based on whatever qualities they want.

So that is how it works?
US military spending is the sacred Cow of Amerika?

No but people do not like seeing their troops go unfunded.

Did you miss the part where more americans want this bill vetoes than don't?

Did you miss the part about passing a spending bill? Passing in this case being signed by the President. Even I want this bill vetoed.

Did you miss the part about passing a spending bill? Passing in this case being signed by the President. Even I want this bill vetoed.

Wow I bungled that up. I of course meant the exact opposite of what I said.

More americans want THIS bill to be signed than vetoed. More people want this bill than one without a timeline.

Those who want this bill vetoed are in the minority.

What ever happened to letting the military fight wars? Why do politicians decide everything? Why didn't the government listen before the war? Why is this such a political thing? Well, I sort've know why, but still. It drives me crazy!!!

What ever happened to letting the military fight wars?

since when has the military EVER decided when it will fight, and when it will stop?

That has ALWAYS been the choice of the government.

Wow I bungled that up. I of course meant the exact opposite of what I said.

More americans want THIS bill to be signed than vetoed. More people want this bill than one without a timeline.

Those who want this bill vetoed are in the minority.

Be that as it may, it is getting vetoed but the people will still not tolerate the fact that our troos will not be funded if the Democrats do not pursue another funding bill.

since when has the military EVER decided when it will fight, and when it will stop?

That has ALWAYS been the choice of the government.

I agree with you 100%

Be that as it may, it is getting vetoed but the people will still not tolerate the fact that our troos will not be funded if the Democrats do not pursue another funding bill.

So they will pursue one with benchmarks, calling for withdrawl if those benchmarks are not met.

or a dozen other ways of basically doing the exact same thing.

So they will pursue one with benchmarks, calling for withdrawl if those benchmarks are not met.

or a dozen other ways of basically doing the exact same thing.

Anything with a timetable is going to be vetoed and there is not enough votes to overturn it.

Anything with a timetable is going to be vetoed and there is not enough votes to overturn it.

And since more people want a bill with timetables than a bill without, who do you think will get blamed for that by the most people?

And since more people want a bill with timetables than a bill without, who do you think will get blamed for that by the most people?

People have short term memories as we all know. And they will blame Bush but not the party as a whole.

Anything with a timetable is going to be vetoed and there is not enough votes to overturn it.for the 100th time:
We (The majority who wants out of Iraq) do NOT need to overturn it.

for the 100th time:
We (The majority who wants out of Iraq) do NOT need to overturn it.

No but when the Military starts to be unfunded, people will revolt against that. The military needs to be funded and people know that. If the Dems want to play politics, let them.

@ CNN on now..

Bush is defending his veto..

But its not his usual funny words that exited my imagination.. Its the Background wallpaper..
Its Says something like General.. Contractors.. Associated..

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070502/capt.0fcba42f06424ad4b502c744da8dde6a.bush_whre105.jpg

My imagination keeps reading "Halliburton.. Blackwater.. Halliburton"

I know it might be unrelated.. but that image is its what attracted my eyes .