NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/22/AR2007052201329.html?hpid=topnews

Democrats concede on No. 1 goal, accept GOP plan to establish benchmarks for the Iraqi government and to require Bush to report on progress.

I knew this was going to happen. Well done Congress.

Well the troops do need funding, and since Bush is basically behaving like a stubborn spoiled little brat, there really wasn't any alternative.

Once the first benchmark comes up, the funding debate's going to start up again. It's only delaying it, not ending it.

I've emailed both of my Senators and told them that I expect them to oppose this bill. That the moronic 28% who offer this madman President any support should be allowed to run roughshod over sane Americans is maddening. If this bill is passed, I will consider it a rank betrayal by my elected officials, and I will support real progressives against them in future primaries.

Yay...Our soldiers will finally be coming home safe and sound...eventually...

I've emailed both of my Senators and told them that I expect them to oppose this bill. That the moronic 28% who offer this madman President any support should be allowed to run roughshod over sane Americans is maddening. If this bill is passed, I will consider it a rank betrayal by my elected officials, and I will support real progressives against them in future primaries.

The final agreement was hammered out by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and followed extensive consultations with GOP leaders and the White House. Party leaders did secure two other priorities, a long-sought minimum wage increase and $20 billion for domestic projects, both of which Bush had initially resisted.

I think you may not want that to happen.

I think you may not want that to happen.

Minimum wage reform and fixing the President's mess in New Orleans can wait. There are Americans dying in Iraq for some stupid religious civil war that's been going on for a Millenia. It's time to fix the GOP's mess there first. This is no fucking compromise, this is a fucking joke. I expect my representatives to be better than this, and I will demand it from them, if they want any voter support.

Minimum wage reform and fixing the President's mess in New Orleans can wait.

The President's mess in New Orleans? You do know that everyone, from the mayor on up was at fault right? And no. It cannot wait. Neither can minimum wage. Neither can alot of the Dems domestic agenda.

There are Americans dying in Iraq for some stupid religious civil war that's been going on for a Millenia. It's time to fix the GOP's mess there first. This is no fucking compromise, this is a fucking joke. I expect my representatives to be better than this, and I will demand it from them, if they want any voter support.

And if the Dems continue to focus on Iraq and ignore the domestic, they will lose.

The President's mess in New Orleans? You do know that everyone, from the mayor on up was at fault right? And no. It cannot wait. Neither can minimum wage. Neither can alot of the Dems domestic agenda.

Nothing matters more than ending the mess in Iraq. It was the President's mess because it was his nepotistic fuckup Brown who fucked up so badly with FEMA, and because the national guard was in Iraq, rather than at home, where it belonged.

And if the Dems continue to focus on Iraq and ignore the domestic, they will lose.

Bullshit. The American people care most about Iraq, and have consistently made that clear.

Nothing matters more than ending the mess in Iraq.

Though it is unpopular, domestic issues seem to be at stake here.

This is from August 2006:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/241/voters-focus-on-domestic-issues-despite-crises-abroad

It was the President's mess because it was his nepotistic fuckup Brown who fucked up so badly with FEMA, and because the national guard was in Iraq, rather than at home, where it belonged.

So I guess local faults do not count? I see!!! Never mind the fact that the Governor dropped the ball. Alwell.. I am glad I see things rationally and not placing all the blame on one person.

Bullshit. The American people care most about Iraq, and have consistently made that clear.

Have they? Then why have their approval ratings dropped since they took office?

Instead of withdrawal dates, Democrats accepted a GOP plan to establish 18 benchmarks for the Iraqi government and to require Bush to report on progress starting in late July. If the Iraqis fall short, they could forfeit U.S. reconstruction aid
The best they could come up with is copy the No Child Left Behind Act and replace "school" with "Iraqi government"?

Though it is unpopular, domestic issues seem to be at stake here.

This is from August 2006:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/241/voters-focus-on-domestic-issues-despite-crises-abroad

And? First off, that poll is almost a year old. Second, the single most important issue most voters named in exit polling in November was Iraq, shortly followed by corruption (two GOP standbyes).

So I guess local faults do not count? I see!!! Never mind the fact that the Governor dropped the ball. Alwell.. I am glad I see things rationally and not placing all the blame on one person.

Guess what? The governor may have screwed up, but no fuckup was as spectacular as Shrubya's. You Bushies may see things "rationally" by blaming anyone else, but it is Bush and Bush's total mishandling of FEMA that kept FEMA from being at all effective.

Have they? Then why have their approval ratings dropped since they took office?

Because the Rethuglicans have been stopping them from doing anything. They tried to raise the minimum wage in January, but the Repuglicans kept them from bringing up the issue. Then, when the Dems tried to fix the GOP's fuckup in Iraq, the GOP pushed back. The Speaker of the House has a national approval rating of 45%. If the Dems are doing such a bad job, why is the Speaker still solid? Sounds like the Goopers are at fault.

And? First off, that poll is almost a year old. Second, the single most important issue most voters named in exit polling in November was Iraq, shortly followed by corruption (two GOP standbyes).

YOu are correct that it was corruption and scandle that brought down the GOP in november 2006. It was primarily this that caused them control of Congress than Iraq. On top of the fact that alot of conservatives stayed home also had something to do with it.

Guess what? The governor may have screwed up, but no fuckup was as spectacular as Shrubya's. You Bushies may see things "rationally" by blaming anyone else, but it is Bush and Bush's total mishandling of FEMA that kept FEMA from being at all effective.

I did not vote for Bush in 2004 (I went with an independent candidate) nor in 2000 (unable to vote) To call me a Bushie is incorrect. As to blaming anyone else but Bush is stupid as I do blame Bush but I also blame the Governor and the Mayor for the disaster.

Because the Rethuglicans have been stopping them from doing anything. They tried to raise the minimum wage in January, but the Repuglicans kept them from bringing up the issue. Then, when the Dems tried to fix the GOP's fuckup in Iraq, the GOP pushed back. The Speaker of the House has a national approval rating of 45%. If the Dems are doing such a bad job, why is the Speaker still solid? Sounds like the Goopers are at fault.

Well done. You can actually read an article. Guess what? The Iraq War debate is bringing down this Congress to. Of course, there are many other factors that is causing the decline in approval ratings of this Congress as well.

YOu are correct that it was corruption and scandle that brought down the GOP in november 2006. It was primarily this that caused them control of Congress than Iraq. On top of the fact that alot of conservatives stayed home also had something to do with it.

That is twisting what I said. It was Iraq, not corruption that came first. Do not twist reality. Conservatives lost because they were wrong, and they greviously harmed our nation with their delusional behaviour.

I did not vote for Bush in 2004 (I went with an independent candidate) nor in 2000 (unable to vote) To call me a Bushie is incorrect. As to blaming anyone else but Bush is stupid as I do blame Bush but I also blame the Governor and the Mayor for the disaster.

Another party. Heh. Right. The Constitution Party is hardly an improovement.


Well done. You can actually read an article. Guess what? The Iraq War debate is bringing down this Congress to. Of course, there are many other factors that is causing the decline in approval ratings of this Congress as well.

No. It is the GOP's refusal to accept the opinion of the majority of Americans that is harming the Congress' image, and their abuse of parliamentary procedure that has stopped the other parts of the Democrat's agenda that are causing the problems. And I can read a lot more than one article, and not all of my reading material comes from Drudge and Malkin.

I've emailed both of my Senators and told them that I expect them to oppose this bill. That the moronic 28% who offer this madman President any support should be allowed to run roughshod over sane Americans is maddening. If this bill is passed, I will consider it a rank betrayal by my elected officials, and I will support real progressives against them in future primaries.

I've got a Republican I want out anyway in the Senate coming up next, and I decided I was going to try to primary the Dem anyway after he went gutless on the Military Commissions Act in 2006. He was running against Katherine Harris. He could have voted for the Compulsory Consumption of Aborted Fetuses and Flag Burning Bill and still won.

I've got a Republican I want out anyway in the Senate coming up next, and I decided I was going to try to primary the Dem anyway after he went gutless on the Military Commissions Act in 2006. He was running against Katherine Harris. He could have voted for the Compulsory Consumption of Aborted Fetuses and Flag Burning Bill and still won.

My state is as likely to send a Republican to DC in the Senate as we are to declare independance and join British Columbia and form Cascadia. It's the primaries that matter around here, and if Patty Murray doesn't oppose this, I will be hard pressed to find a reason to support her in the primaries in '08.

That is twisting what I said. It was Iraq, not corruption that came first. Do not twist reality. Conservatives lost because they were wrong, and they greviously harmed our nation with their delusional behaviour.

They lost because of corruption. Did Iraq have something to do with it? somewhat but Corruption and scandle cost them more than Iraq did.

Another party. Heh. Right. The Constitution Party is hardly an improovement.

Who said it was the Constitution party?

No. It is the GOP's refusal to accept the opinion of the majority of Americans that is harming the Congress' image, and their abuse of parliamentary procedure that has stopped the other parts of the Democrat's agenda that are causing the problems. And I can read a lot more than one article, and not all of my reading material comes from Drudge and Malkin.

HA! I read the Post! Seems to me you are making assumptions here that are turning out to be false. And as I stated before, alot more goes into approval ratings than just foriegn policy but I guess you do not want to hear that.

They lost because of corruption. Did Iraq have something to do with it? somewhat but Corruption and scandle cost them more than Iraq did.

Not according to exit polls. You can twist it whichever way you like.


Who said it was the Constitution party?

That doesn't sound like a denial.


HA! I read the Post! Seems to me you are making assumptions here that are turning out to be false.

Huff Po? Washington Post? Your daily mail? Which "Post" do you speak of?

Not according to exit polls. You can twist it whichever way you like.

yea exit poll data means nothing. How many people actually do them? How many from each party? BTW: how many voters actually stayed home? How many of them were conservatives?

That doesn't sound like a denial.

Does not sound like I said it was either.

Huff Po? Washington Post? Your daily mail? Which "Post" do you speak of?

The Washington Post. I also read the Lancaster Intelligencer, the Philadelphia Inquirer, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and the USA Today.

yea exit poll data means nothing. How many people actually do them? How many from each party? BTW: how many voters actually stayed home? How many of them were conservatives?

Actually, the exit polls tend to be fairly representative. Now, Rethuglicans could have stayed at home (no loss), but what the voters (the Americans who vote, even when things don't look good, or when the choice is hard) said was that corruption took a backseat to Iraq in terms of the numerous Republican fuckups that cost them votes.

Does not sound like I said it was either.

So it was the Constitution Party. That's actually worse than the 'thugs.

The Washington Post. I also read the Lancaster Intelligencer, the Philadelphia Inquirer, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and the USA Today.

Meh. A fine-ish selection. I don't read any of them directly. You can't trust the MSM for anything. Their coverage of the lead-up to Iraq prooved that to me.

My state is as likely to send a Republican to DC in the Senate as we are to declare independance and join British Columbia and form Cascadia. It's the primaries that matter around here, and if Patty Murray doesn't oppose this, I will be hard pressed to find a reason to support her in the primaries in '08.

And that's how we make change. That said, while I'm disappointed with this bill, I really wish the Dems had gone another way about it. If they'd decided they were going to fund the war regardless, then they shold have really loaded this bill up with other shit. Not just minimum wage--throw in single-payer universal health care, a carbon tax, massive funding for alternative fuels, basically the whole social agenda and then some, make it the biggest, leftest bill they can come up with and then say to Bush, you get your war, but we get our shit too. Veto this, motherfucker. If he won't compromise on timetables, make him compromise on something else.

And that's how we make change. That said, while I'm disappointed with this bill, I really wish the Dems had gone another way about it. If they'd decided they were going to fund the war regardless, then they shold have really loaded this bill up with other shit. Not just minimum wage--throw in single-payer universal health care, a carbon tax, massive funding for alternative fuels, basically the whole social agenda and then some, make it the biggest, leftest bill they can come up with and then say to Bush, you get your war, but we get our shit too. Veto this, motherfucker. If he won't compromise on timetables, make him compromise on something else.

Yeah. This is just the crappiest deal I can imagine. If you have to talk to the Republicans, the least you can do is take them for all they're worth.

Actually, the exit polls tend to be fairly representative.

If that were the case, Kerry would have been President.

Now, Rethuglicans could have stayed at home (no loss), but what the voters (the Americans who vote, even when things don't look good, or when the choice is hard) said was that corruption took a backseat to Iraq in terms of the numerous Republican fuckups that cost them votes.

Ah but why did those who did not vote stay home? That is a far more accurate description of why the GOP lost. If the conservatives came out in force (as people thought they would have) the GOP would still be in control of at least one house. Why did they stay home? Corruption and scandle. Thanks though. It has been a nice little debate on this. We now return to the original purpose of this thread.

So it was the Constitution Party. That's actually worse than the 'thugs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_candidates_in_the_United_States_presidential_election%2C_2004

Good luck!

Meh. A fine-ish selection. I don't read any of them directly. You can't trust the MSM for anything. Their coverage of the lead-up to Iraq prooved that to me.

And what would that be? However, that is a different thread.

If that were the case, Kerry would have been President.

2004 being the exception, and not the rule.

Ah but why did those who did not vote stay home? That is a far more accurate description of why the GOP lost. If the conservatives came out in force (as people thought they would have) the GOP would still be in control of at least one house. Why did they stay home? Corruption and scandle. Thanks though. It has been a nice little debate on this. We now return to the original purpose of this thread.

I'm so glad that you can declare victory unilaterally. You sure you don't work for the White House? Conservatives stayed home because they knew that their party had become a joke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_candidates_in_the_United_States_presidential_election%2C_2004

Good luck!

Afraid to give a straight yes or no? I'll take that as a yes.

And what would that be? However, that is a different thread.

Watch Bill Moyer's "Selling the War". It destroyed any of my remaining trust for the media.

Ah but why did those who did not vote stay home? That is a far more accurate description of why the GOP lost. If the conservatives came out in force (as people thought they would have) the GOP would still be in control of at least one house. Why did they stay home? Corruption and scandle. Thanks though. It has been a nice little debate on this. We now return to the original purpose of this thread.
Actually, in 2006, the Republicans turned out at roughly the same rate they always did. The problem was that Independents deserted the Republicans about 3 to 1, 4 to 1 in some elections. In short, the base wasn't enough to get the job done.

Actually, in 2006, the Republicans turned out at roughly the same rate they always did. The problem was that Independents deserted the Republicans about 3 to 1, 4 to 1 in some elections. In short, the base wasn't enough to get the job done.

Then why am I seeing alot of articles about conservatives more likely to stay home?

*shrugs* alwell! If I am indeed wrong, I am wrong.

Well done. You can actually read an article. Guess what? The Iraq War debate is bringing down this Congress to. Of course, there are many other factors that is causing the decline in approval ratings of this Congress as well.

Congress always has low approval ratings: it is not a one-party congress, you may be shocked to find.
http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm

Congress always has low approval ratings: it is not a one-party congress, you may be shocked to find.
http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm

Yes. Thank you for the obvious. Job approval ratings were debated in another thread.

I knew this was going to happen. Well done Congress.

Translation from Corny to English:

That's right Liberal bitches!! Bend over and take it up the ass from Glorious Dear Leader like you're supposed to!! lol!

We need to elect some radicals to Congress. Fuck moderates, they give us this bullshit. I'm so fucking tired of hearing a total cave-in to Bush's whims being called a "compromise".

We need to elect some radicals to Congress. Fuck moderates, they give us this bullshit. I'm so fucking tired of hearing a total cave-in to Bush's whims being called a "compromise".

Email your Senators and your Rep. before you make big plans. Big plans count for nothing until we've shot down this faux-Compromise.

We need to elect some radicals to Congress. Fuck moderates, they give us this bullshit. I'm so fucking tired of hearing a total cave-in to Bush's whims being called a "compromise".

And you think that Radicals will solve problems? I believe just the opposite. We need more moderates.

And you think that Radicals will solve problems? I believe just the opposite. We need more moderates.

If by Moderates you mean people willing to bend over to the far right losers who call themselves moderate Republicans, I'm sure you beleive it. Let me be completely blunt. Progressive Democrats are moderate. Jim Webb is Moderate. Nancy Pelosi is Moderate. The only radicals in the Congress belong to the Republican party, which is so far right that it supports Torture, Hate, and the violation of every civil right but the 2nd and 3rd Ammendments.

Mike Gravel is a Liberal. Dennis Kucinich would be a liberal if he could get his head far enough out of his ass long enough to do something valueble.

Man, this is depressing. I really believed in this congress, really thought they could tough it out and take Bush's war machine down. The only think that could disillusion me further would be if Obama was the one who wrote the bill.

If by Moderates you mean people willing to bend over to the far right losers who call themselves moderate Republicans, I'm sure you beleive it.

Does it make you happy to make accusations? I am talking about people who would write sensible bills without the needless dribble that both the far right and far left spout. I am talking about compromises that make sense. After all, it was the moderates that brought about the Constitution of the United States.

Let me be completely blunt. Progressive Democrats are moderate. Jim Webb is Moderate. Nancy Pelosi is Moderate. The only radicals in the Congress belong to the Republican party,

Now I will call you on BS. This is simply not true and I know you know it. Now prove that the only radicals are Republicans.

Mike Gravel is a Liberal. Dennis Kucinich would be a liberal if he could get his head far enough out of his ass long enough to do something valueble.

Well Kucinich is trying to impeach Vice President Cheney. BTW: Last time I checked, it is still stuck in the House Judiciary Committee.

Does it make you happy to make accusations? I am talking about people who would write sensible bills without the needless dribble that both the far right and far left spout. I am talking about compromises that make sense. After all, it was the moderates that brought about the Constitution of the United States.
Moderates? Really? Some of those men said things that would be political suicide today!
James Madeson, the man who drafted most of the constitution: "Besides the danger of a direct mixture of religion and civil government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles. The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S."

Also, Madison may have been a prophet with visions of the 2000's. "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

Moderates? I think not.

Does it make you happy to make accusations? I am talking about people who would write sensible bills without the needless dribble that both the far right and far left spout. I am talking about compromises that make sense. After all, it was the moderates that brought about the Constitution of the United States.

Not really. It was a partisan move by Federalists to put one over Jefferson et al. with a great deal of popular pressure behind them because of Shay's Rebellion.

Now I will call you on BS. This is simply not true and I know you know it. Now prove that the only radicals are Republicans.

I didn't say that there were no radicals in the Democrats, merely that none of them sat in the Congress. To be fair, I should modify that, and say that none of them holds any power in the Congress, since there are members of the House who are quite radical, but who have no power beyond their one vote.

Well Kucinich is trying to impeach Vice President Cheney. BTW: Last time I checked, it is still stuck in the House Judiciary Committee.

Case in point. Rather than spending political resources on trying to do something realistic, Kucinich tosses out a quick and easy PR stunt. If he ever did anything of substance, Kucinich would be a radical, but substance isn't his thing.

Then why am I seeing alot of articles about conservatives more likely to stay home?

*shrugs* alwell! If I am indeed wrong, I am wrong.

They may in 2008, especially if they don't have a presidential candidate they like. But they didn't stay home in 2006--they just lost the independent voters.

After all, it was the counter-revolutionary assholes that brought about the Constitution of the United States.

fixed for historical accuracy

fixed for historical accuracy

Is that not against the rules "fixing" other people's posts?

I found some testicles out in the hall, it says "Please return to the Democrat Party if found", anyone know where I can mail them too?

I found some testicles out in the hall, it says "Please return to the Democrat Party if found", anyone know where I can mail them too?
Hillary.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/22/AR2007052201329.html?hpid=topnews



I knew this was going to happen. Well done Congress.
The Democrats impress me with their ability to convince me not to vote for them.

The Republicans are so bad that I would vote for a dead mule and his flies if that was the only opposition to a (R) candidate.

But I will never vote for any Democrat who supports this pathetic, spineless "compromise" bullshit.

I found some testicles out in the hall, it says "Please return to the Democrat Party if found", anyone know where I can mail them too?

I doubt they can ever be reattached.

And that's how we make change. That said, while I'm disappointed with this bill, I really wish the Dems had gone another way about it. If they'd decided they were going to fund the war regardless, then they shold have really loaded this bill up with other shit. Not just minimum wage--throw in single-payer universal health care, a carbon tax, massive funding for alternative fuels, basically the whole social agenda and then some, make it the biggest, leftest bill they can come up with and then say to Bush, you get your war, but we get our shit too. Veto this, motherfucker. If he won't compromise on timetables, make him compromise on something else.

The Dems should have gone the Repub way. They tried sneaking an anti-online gambling bill onto a national security bill.

My state is as likely to send a Republican to DC in the Senate as we are to declare independance and join British Columbia and form Cascadia. It's the primaries that matter around here, and if Patty Murray doesn't oppose this, I will be hard pressed to find a reason to support her in the primaries in '08.

At least your state has Dems, and that's better than my state. We have two Repugnantcans pretending to be moderates. Collins voted for the Military Commissions Act (a lot of us intend to make her pay for that in '08); Snowe was up for re-election in '06, and realizing she'd anger voters, she abstained.


And that's how we make change. That said, while I'm disappointed with this bill, I really wish the Dems had gone another way about it. If they'd decided they were going to fund the war regardless, then they shold have really loaded this bill up with other shit. Not just minimum wage--throw in single-payer universal health care, a carbon tax, massive funding for alternative fuels, basically the whole social agenda and then some, make it the biggest, leftest bill they can come up with and then say to Bush, you get your war, but we get our shit too. Veto this, motherfucker. If he won't compromise on timetables, make him compromise on something else.


You, sir, are my new hero. Too bad Pelosi & Co. didn't have the guts to do it. I would have enjoyed watching shrub's face fall off, and smoke pour out of Cheney's ears.

Wow! This really raised my respect for Democrats. The US should not be in the retreating business. It is bad for the prestige of our military. If we retreat bad guys will not fear our military. If our military is not feared military spending is a poor investment of a whole bunch of tax dollars as well as a national security threat. I applaud the Democrats and actually think that this is an ok compromise. Go Democracy!

Wow! This really raised my respect for Democrats.
It hasn't raised my respect at all. Instead of doing what they had a clear mandate to do from the electorate, they forgot they had any balls or guts and continued the same-old Republican policy of Congress being a rubber stamp for Bush.

The US should not be in the retreating business. It is bad for the prestige of our military. If we retreat bad guys will not fear our military. If our military is not feared military spending is a poor investment of a whole bunch of tax dollars as well as a national security threat.
The 'bad guys' don't fear your military (or mine, for that matter), or there wouldn't be a civil war in Iraq right now. In fact, when you're a suicide bomber, I doubt you fear very much, whether your target be a 'prestigious' military or not. In fact, remaining in this mess - and day after day proving that neither the coalition nor the Iraqi government can cope with this disaster - is what reduces British and American prestige, if going to a war on a hopelessly transparent pack of lies doesn't.

I applaud the Democrats and actually think that this is an ok compromise. Go Democracy!
I don't call a lame duck President with a 28% approval rating vetoing a measure passed by the recently elected Congress democratic at all.

Just remember that I called this - that the Democrats would give up.

Just remember that I called this - that the Democrats would give up.

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. :rolleyes:

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. :rolleyes:

Like the Republicans who lie to get votes, it's quite apparent that the Democrats lied to you during the last election.

They never really had any intention of stopping this war in the manner they kept harping about.

Minimum wage reform and fixing the President's mess in New Orleans can wait. There are Americans dying in Iraq for some stupid religious civil war that's been going on for a Millenia. It's time to fix the GOP's mess there first. This is no fucking compromise, this is a fucking joke. I expect my representatives to be better than this, and I will demand it from them, if they want any voter support.

Since Iraq wasn't part of this "religious civil war" prior to us attacking it. And since Iraq appears to be falling into a civil war because of our unprovoked attack and inherent collapse of its government, we have a responsiblity to fix the problems we caused. This means we have the accept the consequences of our actions and help Iraq at all costs, whether we like them or not.

While I still don't think the Democrats are ready to accept responsiblity for our actions, I am glad to see they are willing to compromise and keep us in a position to help alleviate a problem we created.

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. :rolleyes:
Or as they say in the baseball world, "Bush wins, Bush wins, Bush wins..."

Now what was the most substantial piece of legislation passed by the Democrats since they took over leadership of the Congress? Some sort of non-binding anti-war resolution, probably.

... Thank you once again for being spineless, the Democrats... *sighs*

... Thank you once again for being spineless, the Democrats... *sighs*

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

I have a hypothesis:

Democrats learned through Clinton that if they hug the center, they win.

This means that if they hear stuff from the more extreme part of their party (get us out of the war at all costs), it automatically becomes something that they are afraid to push, because as a party, they want to hug the center.

Right now, the center of America would like us out of the war, but not without appearing to shortchange the troops in any way. The center of America is pretty wishywashy, so anyone trying to grab the center will appear wishywashy as well.

Point being, if a Democratic centrist or Republican centrist gets elected, the ideologues of either party are in for a royal fucking.

If the Democrats weren't afraid of "losing the center" that they won in the last election, they would have stuck to this until hell froze over.

They must have access to some internal polling that shows risk - otherwise, they wouldn't have given up.

They were afraid of being tagged as leaving the troops hanging out to dry. I don't know why, they should have kept pressing for the pullout date. Now we have Dear Leader rightfully thinking Congress will suck his cock anytime they want, not to mention Kimchi, Myrmi, Corny, Glorious Freedonia and other NSG Busheviks simultaneously ejaculating in orgasmic bliss onto the American public in a bukkake party of Constitutional abuse.

They were afraid of being tagged as leaving the troops hanging out to dry. I don't know why, they should have kept pressing for the pullout date. Now we have Dear Leader rightfully thinking Congress will suck his cock anytime they want, not to mention Kimchi, Myrmi, Corny, Glorious Freedonia and other NSG Busheviks simultaneously ejaculating in orgasmic bliss onto the American public in a bukkake party of Constitutional abuse.

It's not my fault that Pelosi and Reid have the backbone of a flatworm.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
There's nothing to really wonder about. I'm on the left and even I'm not deluded enough to see that the Democrats have any kind of internal support. To me, they basically seem to be a united opposition to the Republicans and nothing else - no real unity, no particularly stand-out policies, and no particularly excellent leaders.

Which is a huge shame, because I'd much rather have them in power than the Republicans, and I'm sure they'd get their shit together were they actually in control, but at the moment, it looks to be a shambles.

There's nothing to really wonder about. I'm on the left and even I'm not deluded enough to see that the Democrats have any kind of internal support. To me, they basically seem to be a united opposition to the Republicans and nothing else - no real unity, no particularly stand-out policies, and no particularly excellent leaders.

Which is a huge shame, because I'd much rather have them in power than the Republicans, and I'm sure they'd get their shit together were they actually in control, but at the moment, it looks to be a shambles.

It's not like there has ever been a real, credible Left in the US.

The Democrats are about as "left" (lowercase) as Tony Blair.

It's not like there has ever been a real, credible Left in the US.
Shame, really, because the US is one of the only places in the world with enough money to be able to afford a really good welfare state.
The Democrats are about as "left" (lowercase) as Tony Blair.
Quite. Oh how the Left has been betrayed back here in the UK :(

Like the Republicans who lie to get votes, it's quite apparent that the Democrats lied to you during the last election.

They never really had any intention of stopping this war in the manner they kept harping about.

If memory serves me right, this was going to fund both wars right? Afghanistan and Iraq?

If so, then they ran into a brick wall.

I have a hypothesis:

Democrats learned through Clinton that if they hug the center, they win.

This means that if they hear stuff from the more extreme part of their party (get us out of the war at all costs), it automatically becomes something that they are afraid to push, because as a party, they want to hug the center.

Right now, the center of America would like us out of the war, but not without appearing to shortchange the troops in any way. The center of America is pretty wishywashy, so anyone trying to grab the center will appear wishywashy as well.

Point being, if a Democratic centrist or Republican centrist gets elected, the ideologues of either party are in for a royal fucking.

If the Democrats weren't afraid of "losing the center" that they won in the last election, they would have stuck to this until hell froze over.

They must have access to some internal polling that shows risk - otherwise, they wouldn't have given up.

Its called a five point drop in their approval ratings :D. They were doing well until last month then trust dropped. It will probably drop more because of what is going on with Murtha (Thank God I am not in his district or I would have wrung his neck in the papers and sent him scathing letters)

Its called a five point drop in their approval ratings :D. They were doing well until last month then trust dropped. It will probably drop more because of what is going on with Murtha (Thank God I am not in his district or I would have wrung his neck in the papers and sent him scathing letters)

They really dropped the ball on that one. It all goes to show, politics as usual.

They really dropped the ball on that one. It all goes to show, politics as usual.

Yup. Can not argue with that statement.

Quite. Oh how the Left has been betrayed back here in the UK :(

We're all still here, we just all left the labour party:D

Yup. Can not argue with that statement.

Politics as Usual which has you and Kimchi sitting together like Bob Crane and John Carpenter painting the screen white as a fringe benefit obviously.

Politics as Usual which has you and Kimchi sitting together like Bob Crane and John Carpenter painting the screen white as a fringe benefit obviously.

Politics as usual with you supporting the Wuss Party which oddly, had no intention of supporting you.

Or as they say in the baseball world, "Bush wins, Bush wins, Bush wins..."

Now what was the most substantial piece of legislation passed by the Democrats since they took over leadership of the Congress? Some sort of non-binding anti-war resolution, probably.

Perhaps you forgot they accomplished their 100 hour agenda in 54 hours? Or you fail to realize that they passed the measure with the time-lines and benchmarks in it but Bush vetoed it? You're great at conveniently forgetting information that doesn't allow you to Monica the President. The Democrats put up a fight and drew the distinction between themselves and the President quite well. They also painted Republican opponents into a corner by forcing them to vote with the President and it will come back to bite them come election 08. Finally, they pushed through legislation which will helps ordinary Americans in their everyday lives so in the end there is not much "winning" going on for Bush or the Republican party. Bush gets his war and the Democrats get their domestic agenda. The real party screwed here is the Republican party. Especially Republicans, like myself, in blue states who are trying to push forth common sense agendas balancing both liberal and conservative principals. There doesn't seem to be much room for someone who can see past the two polarized sides of the spectrum in our "Bush" Republican party.

Herein lies the difference between you and I. If Bush wins but Americans and their fighting men and women lose it's hooray for party over country to you. Democrats want to end the war but they don't want to shortchange the troops as it's not only bad policy, but it will get them slaughtered in public opinion and the next election. They have painted the picture as to who wants the troops to come home quickly with real measurable benchmarks for success and who wants to keep them their while racking up soundbytes about "winning." Although it would be nice to see the Dems grow a sack and push for what they believe to the end, this is a rarity in American politics. For right now the Democrats can settle for a tactical victory against a President who wants to "stay the course" and talk about "winning" without any verifiable way to hold him accountable for this policies. As a Bushbot it's a hell of a day to be happy. As an American or a Republican it's a day to curse foolish leadership for bringing you to your knees.

We're all still here, we just all left the labour party:D
Errr... which means you have no hope of getting into power, unless you infiltrated the Conservatives.

I have a hypothesis:

Democrats learned through Clinton that if they hug the center, they win.

This means that if they hear stuff from the more extreme part of their party (get us out of the war at all costs), it automatically becomes something that they are afraid to push, because as a party, they want to hug the center.

Right now, the center of America would like us out of the war, but not without appearing to shortchange the troops in any way. The center of America is pretty wishywashy, so anyone trying to grab the center will appear wishywashy as well.

Point being, if a Democratic centrist or Republican centrist gets elected, the ideologues of either party are in for a royal fucking.

If the Democrats weren't afraid of "losing the center" that they won in the last election, they would have stuck to this until hell froze over.

They must have access to some internal polling that shows risk - otherwise, they wouldn't have given up.

In summation: They don't want to bow to the lunatic fringes of their party so this makes them...bad? Anyone who goes too far to the right or the left will wind up falling off the wagon. Maybe centrist views are more preferable because they require logic, reasoning, and intelligence. Perhaps having the ability to hold two diametrically opposed views in one tiny head is a good thing. The reason why centrists seem "wishywashy" to you is because they actually think of their position and do not react in a purely ideological way. You need the centrists to reign in the loonies on either side.

As an American or a Republican it's a day to curse foolish leadership for bringing you to your knees.

I know literally hundreds of people serving in Iraq.

None of them want to leave.

And they don't like Bush either, so they're not Bushbots.

Are you saying that they should curse the leadership?

Politics as usual with you supporting the Wuss Party which oddly, had no intention of supporting you.

Brilliant!?

I know literally hundreds of people serving in Iraq.

None of them want to leave.
You exaggerate a tad?

Poll: 72 percent of troops want out of Iraq in a year (http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Poll_72_percent_of_troops_want_0228.html)

And they don't like Bush either, so they're not Bushbots.

Are you saying that they should curse the leadership?
Perhaps they don't have a job to come home to, or they like killing Muslims?

You exaggerate a tad?

Poll: 72 percent of troops want out of Iraq in a year (http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Poll_72_percent_of_troops_want_0228.html)


Not a valid poll.

You need to poll infantrymen - the people who actually get outside the FOB.

A lot of people (most of them) stay inside the wire their entire tour - and it's boring, and it's hard to be away from family.

I'm talking about infantrymen - the people I know. None of them want to leave.

Most of them, because the locals ask them to stay everyday.

I know literally hundreds of people serving in Iraq.

None of them want to leave.

And they don't like Bush either, so they're not Bushbots.

Are you saying that they should curse the leadership?

Shall I just take your word for it? I served with and know many people working in Iraq currently, they sure as hell don't want to be there. They don't enjoy the idea of being in the middle of a civil war with little or no hope of accomplishing the mission they set out to do. You're telling me that soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen would rather be in Iraq than at home with their families? I'm sure many men and women over there are cursing their leadership as we speak. They won't do it publicly as it is a violation of code to do so. I didn't call your 'people' bushbots as I was Referring to DK, EO, Myrm, and other incarnations of the same diseased well (EO is RO?) in that regard. Even Conry can differentiate between good Bush policies and bad ones. On the contray you ahev the aforementioned and unholy smite who cannot dissociate themselves with Bush on any issue because after all, not following along would make you part of the "wuss party" as you so eloquently put it. That comment alone is telling as to why the Democrats pulled back.

Not a valid poll.

You need to poll infantrymen - the people who actually get outside the FOB.

A lot of people (most of them) stay inside the wire their entire tour - and it's boring, and it's hard to be away from family.

I'm talking about infantrymen - the people I know. None of them want to leave.

Most of them, because the locals ask them to stay everyday.

That poll is not valid but your "people I know" info is? HA HA HA and horseshit to you sir. One again, I'll just take you at your word?

There's nothing to really wonder about. I'm on the left and even I'm not deluded enough to see that the Democrats have any kind of internal support. To me, they basically seem to be a united opposition to the Republicans and nothing else - no real unity, no particularly stand-out policies, and no particularly excellent leaders.

Exactly. The Dems only won because of Bush/Republican hatred (though, if you wanna get technical, the Dems only tied Republicans in the Senate; 49-49 each with 2 independents, the Dems just convinced the independents to vote Democrat).

Which is a huge shame, because I'd much rather have them in power than the Republicans, and I'm sure they'd get their shit together were they actually in control, but at the moment, it looks to be a shambles.

I wouldn't call it a shame, but I would like to see the Dems grow a spine and actually stand for issues instead of solely against issues; they'd gain a great deal of respect even from this die-hard Republican.

Shall I just take your word for it?

given their known penchant for not even being able to accurately relay information from short news articles that they provide links to and their openly expressed desire to commit genocide against middle easterners, probably not.

Most of them, because the locals ask them to stay everyday.
More of your hogwash. Yeah, the Iraqis are tripping over themselves, begging US forces to stay. Right....

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/jan06/Iraq_Jan06_grph3.GIF

Even larger majorities, including a majority of Kurds, indicate a readiness to follow the government’s lead should it choose to pursue a timetable. Asked if it was a good idea for Iraqi leaders to have agreed at the Arab League conference that there should be a timetable for the withdrawal of US-led forces from Iraq, 87% say that it was, including 64% of Kurds, 94% of Sunnis and 90% of Shia.
You were probably among the disappointed ones that were expecting Iraqis to lay down a carpet of red roses for your buds?

More of your hogwash. Yeah, the Iraqis are tripping over themselves, begging US forces to stay. Right....

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/jan06/Iraq_Jan06_grph3.GIF


You were probably among the disappointed ones that were expecting Iraqis to lay down a carpet of red roses for your buds?

Right before he sterilizes them too. :D

That poll is not valid but your "people I know" info is? HA HA HA and horseshit to you sir. One again, I'll just take you at your word?
He can be a tad annoying when he gets set in his predictable ways. :eek:

This is related:

Both sides claim victory Iraq funding bill (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/23/us.iraq.ap/index.html)

Exactly. The Dems only won because of Bush/Republican hatred (though, if you wanna get technical, the Dems only tied Republicans in the Senate; 49-49 each with 2 independents, the Dems just convinced the independents to vote Democrat).



I wouldn't call it a shame, but I would like to see the Dems grow a spine and actually stand for issues instead of solely against issues; they'd gain a great deal of respect even from this die-hard Republican.

They stand for a decent minimum wage. That was the compromise they reached. I would have asked for a little more from Bush, as it's not much of a sacrifice on his part, but meh.

The bill wasn't going to get passed as it was, there is now a way for anti-war dems to say they're anti-war, and the minimum wage is raised. I'll take it.

They stand for a decent minimum wage. That was the compromise they reached. I would have asked for a little more from Bush, as it's not much of a sacrifice on his part, but meh.

The bill wasn't going to get passed as it was, there is now a way for anti-war dems to say they're anti-war, and the minimum wage is raised. I'll take it.

You're missing the whole point. The point was to not pass any bill at all. If no bill is passed, then next month they'll have to start wrapping up because they won't have any money. The congress had all the cards in their hand, but they apparently don't have the spine to call a republican bluff.

The Dems were always going to get at least one of the independents, I mean Samuels is a socalist obviously domestically he is waaaaaaaay more Democrat than Republican.

And Lieberman stayed out of loyalty which was nice on his part as the Dems sure didn't show him any.

The Dems were always going to get at least one of the independents, I mean Samuels is a socalist obviously domestically he is waaaaaaaay more Democrat than Republican.

And Lieberman stayed out of loyalty which was nice on his part as the Dems sure didn't show him any.

Lieberman, loyal? Please. He was a Bushevik calling himself a Democrat. When he got the boot from the party he only managed to keep his seat in the Senate as an Independent.

Not a valid poll.

You need to poll infantrymen - the people who actually get outside the FOB.

A lot of people (most of them) stay inside the wire their entire tour - and it's boring, and it's hard to be away from family.

I'm talking about infantrymen - the people I know. None of them want to leave.

Most of them, because the locals ask them to stay everyday.

You don't think infantry is boring also 99.9% of the time? It's 6 hours of patrol and 8 or 9 hours of sitting in an OP daily with maybe 10 or 15 minutes of excitement/terror daily or every other day. And you can put me in the wanting to come home category when I'm there. I would much rather be with my family but of course that doesn't mean that I don't want to win or that I wouldn't stay for 3 years if it meant victory. And the local part of your post is highly dependent on where you are.

The Dems were always going to get at least one of the independents, I mean Samuels is a socalist obviously domestically he is waaaaaaaay more Democrat than Republican.

And Lieberman stayed out of loyalty which was nice on his part as the Dems sure didn't show him any.

Do you mean Sanders, as in Bernie Sanders? Geez.