Pelosi does more damage....

[Lemon law]

If you read the rolling stones link you can see what a truly steamroller congress looked like----the dems are not have secret deliberations, are not presenting bills at the last minute, are not preventing the republicans from participating in the debate, or restricting their ability to question witnesses. Compare the records thus far and then get back to us palehorse74.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: jrenz
So how does your support of bipartisan cooperation go hand in hand with "t's time for payback. Anything that got the Republicans squirming, I am for."?

And the slim victory the Democrats got was not a mandate for a liberal agenda, it was a protest against Bush and his policies. The country is still very much conservative, so maybe the Democrats should practice what they preached, instead of doing the same thing that caused the Republicans to fall out of favor.

That is your opinion. If this country was conservative as you claim, it would not have made a San Francisco Liberal the speaker of the House.

My proof is in the majority of stateside initiatives in which the results were overwhelmingly conservative. The fact that almost every time there is some sort of vote in this state or that on issues, the outcome is mostly conservative.

Maybe in the states you care about, but the outcome of this election is that an SF liberal is the Speaker of the House. That should tell you something about the voters intent.

How about in the majority of the country?

How many times do you hear about bills allowing gay marriage being voted down, even in mostly liberal leaning states? About conservative state senators being voted into incumbant liberal seats? If you paid a little more attention to what "the people" are saying, instead of what you want to hear, you'd see that this is still a very conservative country.

The fact that Pelosi is speaker, as was pointed out, has nothing to do with what people wanted They wanted Democrats in congress to oppose the administrations policies... it's not like they voted for Pelosi to be speaker.

The voters have spoken, and they want the Democrats in power.

Then why such a slim win? I won't argue that people want the Democrats in congress, but that is not a mandate for a liberal agenda, it's a mandate against the current administration. The Democrats are going to be their own undoing by trying to use their new power to push an agenda which the country doesn't want. Why do you think that congress now has a lower approval rating than the president?

Slim win? Republicans got a beating. They'll get another one next year. With all the incumbent protection and redistricting and money the GOP raised, they got a pretty good beating. Congress has a lower approval than president, because they haven't yet done what the voters sent them there to do. Which is exactly why the Democrats need to put Republicans into their place. Their job is to act on the wishes of the voters, not be bipartisan at all cost.

Bipartisan at all cost? I might as well give up now, because you still can't seem to comprehend the concept of cooperation and compromise, which the Democrats preached about for years as their platform for running congress. Now that they've abandoned that thought, you follow them right along into the same situation that caused the Republicans to lose control.

If Republicans want to be bipartisan in that context, they are more than welcome to join the Democrats, but losers don't get to call the shots, and face it, Republicans are losers.

So stop pretending that the Democrats are any different from the Republicans in terms of cooperation and progress, contrary to what they've been claiming for the last 6 years.

They are totally different. Republicans were completely and thoroughly corrupt. There is a difference between being tough and being corrupt. Democrats need to be tough to get the will of the voters enacted. Voters are waiting on action on healthcare, Iraq, energy, environment, etc. This is no time to let the Republicans obstruct the will of the people. They are however welcome to join the Democrats in a bipartisan matter in getting those issues enacted. A voice, not a veto.

You keep talking about the will of the people, while ignoring it at the same time.

The longer you persist in the denial that the voters really wanted Republicans in power, but they didn't vote for them to send a message to Bush, the longer your party will be on the losing end of elections.

Why don't you work on getting your Democratic congress's approval rating above that of the failing Republican president's, and we'll revisit your theory.

Well, that's what Pelosi is working on. Americans want the Democrats to do what they were sent to do, not play "bipartisanship" while the Republicans obstruct the voters' will with procedural tricks.

You know full well, as well as I do, and as well an anybody in the country, that Bush is still president, but you seem to think that the Democrats could pass any bill they want to push their agenda, and it wouldn't get vetoed. How do you think anything will get done without compromise on both sides of the aisle? I will say again... unless the Democrats practice what they preach and compromise on issues, they'll keep getting it thrown back in their faces, and as usual, nothing will get done, and they will lose power again.

The concept of bipartisanship has the Republicans squirming too. I didn't see them being bipartisan when they were in power.

Isn't that exactly why the Democrats promised bi-partisan cooperation? A "new era" or compromise and working together in congress? Or does that really mean "The exact same thing the Republicans did"?

Noone is stopping the Republicans from joining the Democrats to get things done that the voters sent them to congress to do. But watering down and blocking the will of the people for the sake of bipartisanship is not what the American people want

So why did they spend all that time talking about a new era of bipartisan cooperation if they got elected? I keep asking you this, and I keep getting non-answers.

Now they will have to be bipartisan on the Democrats' terms. And that means, a junior partner, not a co-leader.

Thanks for confirming my point.

Good, and for your party's sake, you should pray they learn it before the next election, or the voters will send them another "reminder." If you continue to not get the message the voters sent last year, you they will keep hammering your party until you get it. The voters don't want what the GOP is offering, they want change. If the GOP wants to be bipartisan to get these changes done, they can go along for the ride. If they keep obstructing that change, they will become political roadkill.

That's exactly what I am trying to tell you. The people are tired of one party having all the power. The Democrats promised cooperation and a congress which gets things done, without one party having all control, which is what the Democrats promised, and now that they are in power, payback is the only thing on their agenda, as you so aptly articulated in your original post.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: jrenz
So how does your support of bipartisan cooperation go hand in hand with "t's time for payback. Anything that got the Republicans squirming, I am for."?

And the slim victory the Democrats got was not a mandate for a liberal agenda, it was a protest against Bush and his policies. The country is still very much conservative, so maybe the Democrats should practice what they preached, instead of doing the same thing that caused the Republicans to fall out of favor.

That is your opinion. If this country was conservative as you claim, it would not have made a San Francisco Liberal the speaker of the House.

My proof is in the majority of stateside initiatives in which the results were overwhelmingly conservative. The fact that almost every time there is some sort of vote in this state or that on issues, the outcome is mostly conservative.

Maybe in the states you care about, but the outcome of this election is that an SF liberal is the Speaker of the House. That should tell you something about the voters intent.

How about in the majority of the country?

How many times do you hear about bills allowing gay marriage being voted down, even in mostly liberal leaning states? About conservative state senators being voted into incumbant liberal seats? If you paid a little more attention to what "the people" are saying, instead of what you want to hear, you'd see that this is still a very conservative country.

The fact that Pelosi is speaker, as was pointed out, has nothing to do with what people wanted They wanted Democrats in congress to oppose the administrations policies... it's not like they voted for Pelosi to be speaker.

The voters have spoken, and they want the Democrats in power.

Then why such a slim win? I won't argue that people want the Democrats in congress, but that is not a mandate for a liberal agenda, it's a mandate against the current administration. The Democrats are going to be their own undoing by trying to use their new power to push an agenda which the country doesn't want. Why do you think that congress now has a lower approval rating than the president?

Slim win? Republicans got a beating. They'll get another one next year. With all the incumbent protection and redistricting and money the GOP raised, they got a pretty good beating. Congress has a lower approval than president, because they haven't yet done what the voters sent them there to do. Which is exactly why the Democrats need to put Republicans into their place. Their job is to act on the wishes of the voters, not be bipartisan at all cost.

Bipartisan at all cost? I might as well give up now, because you still can't seem to comprehend the concept of cooperation and compromise, which the Democrats preached about for years as their platform for running congress. Now that they've abandoned that thought, you follow them right along into the same situation that caused the Republicans to lose control.

If Republicans want to be bipartisan in that context, they are more than welcome to join the Democrats, but losers don't get to call the shots, and face it, Republicans are losers.

So stop pretending that the Democrats are any different from the Republicans in terms of cooperation and progress, contrary to what they've been claiming for the last 6 years.

They are totally different. Republicans were completely and thoroughly corrupt. There is a difference between being tough and being corrupt. Democrats need to be tough to get the will of the voters enacted. Voters are waiting on action on healthcare, Iraq, energy, environment, etc. This is no time to let the Republicans obstruct the will of the people. They are however welcome to join the Democrats in a bipartisan matter in getting those issues enacted. A voice, not a veto.

You keep talking about the will of the people, while ignoring it at the same time.

The longer you persist in the denial that the voters really wanted Republicans in power, but they didn't vote for them to send a message to Bush, the longer your party will be on the losing end of elections.

Why don't you work on getting your Democratic congress's approval rating above that of the failing Republican president's, and we'll revisit your theory.

Well, that's what Pelosi is working on. Americans want the Democrats to do what they were sent to do, not play "bipartisanship" while the Republicans obstruct the voters' will with procedural tricks.

You know full well, as well as I do, and as well an anybody in the country, that Bush is still president, but you seem to think that the Democrats could pass any bill they want to push their agenda, and it wouldn't get vetoed. How do you think anything will get done without compromise on both sides of the aisle? I will say again... unless the Democrats practice what they preach and compromise on issues, they'll keep getting it thrown back in their faces, and as usual, nothing will get done, and they will lose power again.

The concept of bipartisanship has the Republicans squirming too. I didn't see them being bipartisan when they were in power.

Isn't that exactly why the Democrats promised bi-partisan cooperation? A "new era" or compromise and working together in congress? Or does that really mean "The exact same thing the Republicans did"?

Noone is stopping the Republicans from joining the Democrats to get things done that the voters sent them to congress to do. But watering down and blocking the will of the people for the sake of bipartisanship is not what the American people want

So why did they spend all that time talking about a new era of bipartisan cooperation if they got elected? I keep asking you this, and I keep getting non-answers.

Now they will have to be bipartisan on the Democrats' terms. And that means, a junior partner, not a co-leader.

Thanks for confirming my point.

Good, and for your party's sake, you should pray they learn it before the next election, or the voters will send them another "reminder." If you continue to not get the message the voters sent last year, you they will keep hammering your party until you get it. The voters don't want what the GOP is offering, they want change. If the GOP wants to be bipartisan to get these changes done, they can go along for the ride. If they keep obstructing that change, they will become political roadkill.

That's exactly what I am trying to tell you. The people are tired of one party having all the power.
The Democrats promised cooperation and a congress which gets things done, without one party having all control, which is what the Democrats promised, and now that they are in power, payback is the only thing on their agenda, as you so aptly articulated in your original post.

No, people are tired of the Republicans having all the power. That's why they threw them out of office. I voted for Democrats because I want the Democrat agenda passed, not simply to block the Republican agenda and pass nothing. I welcome inputs from the Republicans on issues, and if they are valid they should be adopted, but I will not stand for them blocking and otherwise obstructing the will of the American people who elected Democrats. And if payback was the only thing on the Democrat agenda, they would be impeaching Bush now. Withdrawing troops from Iraq is not payback, it's what the American people wanted last November. American people want something done about the healthcare system's out of control costs in this country. They want something done about unfair trade from China. Republicans have no power because American people don't want them in power, and until they get it they will be given the same message every election. It will probably take several cycles for the GOP's sense of entitlement to power to dissipate, and for humility to return.

 

[thraashman]

Ok, there should be a rule on P&N. Anyone who posts something from Drudge Report and expects it to be taken as something that's accurate and honest should then have to fully accept anything posted in response from The Onion. I've never read anything from Drudge that was not full of blatant misinformation and lies. From reading the second article, the minority decided to be obstructionist when they weren't getting their way (when the Dems tried this a few years ago the Reps bitched and moaned, so the Dems significantly lessened how often they did) and when in irritation someone commented that the rules "may have to change". The Reps decided that was them trying to change the rules, so they became even MORE obstructionist. When the comment wasn't even an attempt to change the rules, it was an irritated, empty handed threat. And it wasn't even said by Pelosi! Seriously, Drudge is full of crap.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: jrenz
Then why such a slim win? I won't argue that people want the Democrats in congress, but that is not a mandate for a liberal agenda, it's a mandate against the current administration. The Democrats are going to be their own undoing by trying to use their new power to push an agenda which the country doesn't want. Why do you think that congress now has a lower approval rating than the president?

That is false. If you go to pollingreport.com you will notice that both congress and the president have roughly equivalent approval ratings, and that the difference between them is within the margin of error thus making the distinction meaningless.

Considering the small number of seats that were up for serious contention this last November as shown here particularly in historical contrast, show that this election was even more of a landslide for democrats then is easily shown by their (still considerable) congressional seat pickups. Simply put, even with all the gerrymandering (in fact especially considering the gerrymandering)... November 2006 was a slaughter. Everyone knows what the democrats stand for, and they clearly showed that they want the Democrats in charge... its not like they didn't know what they were going to do when they got there.

I love how right wingers always assume that when right wing candidates win it is the will of the people, but when right wing candidates lose it is because they have strayed from true conservatism. It's amazing, conservatism itself never fails, it is only failed. That's the biggest crock of $hit I've ever heard.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
If you read the rolling stones link you can see what a truly steamroller congress looked like----the dems are not have secret deliberations, are not presenting bills at the last minute, are not preventing the republicans from participating in the debate, or restricting their ability to question witnesses

they're not!? Are you nuts?! In the 11th hour, the Dems have consistently slipped "secret" items into every bill proposed during this session! Where the heck have you been?!

In other words, last November, the Dems stole the Republican playbook and are now using it as their own - their promises of "bipartisan cooperation, compromise, change, and a new era" are nothing more than nice words to describe their newfound ability to abuse power. They used those nice words to get elected and then ran in an entirely different direction with the ball...

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: jrenz
Then why such a slim win? I won't argue that people want the Democrats in congress, but that is not a mandate for a liberal agenda, it's a mandate against the current administration. The Democrats are going to be their own undoing by trying to use their new power to push an agenda which the country doesn't want. Why do you think that congress now has a lower approval rating than the president?

That is false. If you go to pollingreport.com you will notice that both congress and the president have roughly equivalent approval ratings, and that the difference between them is within the margin of error thus making the distinction meaningless.

Considering the small number of seats that were up for serious contention this last November as shown here particularly in historical contrast, show that this election was even more of a landslide for democrats then is easily shown by their (still considerable) congressional seat pickups. Simply put, even with all the gerrymandering (in fact especially considering the gerrymandering)... November 2006 was a slaughter. Everyone knows what the democrats stand for, and they clearly showed that they want the Democrats in charge... its not like they didn't know what they were going to do when they got there.

I love how right wingers always assume that when right wing candidates win it is the will of the people, but when right wing candidates lose it is because they have strayed from true conservatism. It's amazing, conservatism itself never fails, it is only failed. That's the biggest crock of $hit I've ever heard.

Kind of like how when Democrats lose, its voter fraud, but when they win, its a perfectly run election?

 

[JD50]

Senseamp, your posts are the exact opposite of what we have seen the Dems on this board saying for the past six years. Please keep posting, this is hillarious.

 

[theeedude]

I only speak for myself. Other democrats can have other ideas. It's allowed in our party.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I only speak for myself. Other democrats can have other ideas. It's allowed in our party.

I take it that the whole "Practice what you preach" thing is optional as well?

What we see in Congress today is the exact opposite of what the Dems promised in order to win the elections last November.

I chide myself for ever believing, in for a second, that things may be different, or get better.

Meet your new boss, same as the old boss...

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp
I only speak for myself. Other democrats can have other ideas. It's allowed in our party.

I take it that the whole "Practice what you preach" thing is optional as well?

What we see in Congress today is the exact opposite of what the Dems promised in order to win the elections last November.

I chide myself for ever believing, in for a second, that things may be different, or get better.

Meet your new boss, same as the old boss...

If you believed that things would get better under Democrats, why didn't you vote for them? You can either accept that your side lost and is out of power, or be a sore loser, it's your decision. But the point is there are consequences to elections. And one of them is that the losing party does not call the shots. That's the way the Founders intended.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp
I only speak for myself. Other democrats can have other ideas. It's allowed in our party.

I take it that the whole "Practice what you preach" thing is optional as well?

What we see in Congress today is the exact opposite of what the Dems promised in order to win the elections last November.

I chide myself for ever believing, in for a second, that things may be different, or get better.

Meet your new boss, same as the old boss...

If you believed that things would get better under Democrats, why didn't you vote for them? You can either accept that your side lost and is out of power, or be a sore loser, it's your decision. But the point is there are consequences to elections. And one of them is that the losing party does not call the shots. That's the way the Founders intended.

Did you support the Republicans acting like this for the last 6 years or did you complain about it?

 

[UberNeuman]

bah, this whole thread is nonsense. If the Republicans would have held the house and senate there'd be a whole lot of happy little clams continuing to tow the GOP line (instead of crying like they are now) - and acting like it was some kind of joke about locking out the voice of Democrats in the political process....

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp
I only speak for myself. Other democrats can have other ideas. It's allowed in our party.

I take it that the whole "Practice what you preach" thing is optional as well?

What we see in Congress today is the exact opposite of what the Dems promised in order to win the elections last November.

I chide myself for ever believing, in for a second, that things may be different, or get better.

Meet your new boss, same as the old boss...

If you believed that things would get better under Democrats, why didn't you vote for them? You can either accept that your side lost and is out of power, or be a sore loser, it's your decision. But the point is there are consequences to elections. And one of them is that the losing party does not call the shots. That's the way the Founders intended.

Did you support the Republicans acting like this for the last 6 years or did you complain about it?

There is no comparison between the Republicans then and Democrats now. Stop trying to twist the issue.
There was no question that the Republicans were going to get their agenda passed in the House, and they did. Was I happy about it, no, that's why we worked hard and eventually won back the House, and now the Democrats are the ones who get to have their agenda passed. There is nothing unfair or wrong with that. To the victor go the spoils.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
bah, this whole thread is nonsense. If the Republicans would have held the house and senate there'd be a whole lot of happy little clams continuing to tow the GOP line (instead of crying like they are now) - and acting like it was some kind of joke about locking out the voice of Democrats in the political process....

well bills would actually be passing without veto, and our military wouldnt have to worry about funding while they (we) risk their (our) lives every day. What you don't seem to realize is that the troops are staying over there regardless of this show the Dems are putting on right now in Congress. So, as always, the lesser of two evils in this case would be to let them have the funding they need - at least until the next election.

Either way, our troops are staying there and all of the Dems efforts to bring them by Christmas are for naught.

That there is the bold-faced truth the Dems are refusing to admit.

 

[Jhhnn]

From palehorse 74-

well bills would actually be passing without veto, and our military wouldnt have to worry about funding while they (we) risk their (our) lives every day. What you don't seem to realize is that the troops are staying over there regardless of this show the Dems are putting on right now in Congress. So, as always, the lesser of two evils in this case would be to let them have the funding they need - at least until the next election.

Either way, our troops are staying there and all of the Dems efforts to bring them by Christmas are for naught.

The troops may well be staying, but the Admin and the repubs can be made to pay a price for their stubbornness. The smartest thing Dems can do now is send Bush a bill authorizing redistibution of allocated DoD funds to support the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, then refuse to authorize any "emergency" funding, at all. He has $440B to work with, iirc- let him make the tough choices, listen to his defense contractor pals whine as their contracts get cancelled or delayed... figure out just what parts of the giant military machine are the most important...

The whole bit about funding the occupation as an "emergency" is extremely dishonest, anyway, and a scam to move the expense off-budget so as to crow about numbers that aren't real, like"budget deficit", which has become meaningless...

Sentiment against the occupation grows daily, which is why Bush wants full year funding, or more, with no strings attached, and is also precisely why he won't get it.

Dems also realize that "bringing the troops home by Christmas" is unrealistic only if you're talking about 2007... August of 2008 is what's been proposed, and vetoed. If the situation hasn't improved long before that, Repubs will be swept out of office in a tidal wave- and the chances of this "surge" having the desired effect are really quite slim...

Welcome to the realm of "personal responsibility", gentlemen- it's what you've wanted all along, right?

Well, maybe not, not when it means taking responsibility for disastrous domestic, fiscal, and foreign policy decisions based on a dreamland rightwing ideology... better to blame the opposition, if you can, because they're just as bad, right?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From palehorse 74-

well bills would actually be passing without veto, and our military wouldnt have to worry about funding while they (we) risk their (our) lives every day. What you don't seem to realize is that the troops are staying over there regardless of this show the Dems are putting on right now in Congress. So, as always, the lesser of two evils in this case would be to let them have the funding they need - at least until the next election.

Either way, our troops are staying there and all of the Dems efforts to bring them by Christmas are for naught.

The troops may well be staying, but the Admin and the repubs can be made to pay a price for their stubbornness. The smartest thing Dems can do now is send Bush a bill authorizing redistibution of allocated DoD funds to support the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, then refuse to authorize any "emergency" funding, at all. He has $440B to work with, iirc- let him make the tough choices, listen to his defense contractor pals whine as their contracts get cancelled or delayed... figure out just what parts of the giant military machine are the most important...

The whole bit about funding the occupation as an "emergency" is extremely dishonest, anyway, and a scam to move the expense off-budget so as to crow about numbers that aren't real, like"budget deficit", which has become meaningless...

Sentiment against the occupation grows daily, which is why Bush wants full year funding, or more, with no strings attached, and is also precisely why he won't get it.

Dems also realize that "bringing the troops home by Christmas" is unrealistic only if you're talking about 2007... August of 2008 is what's been proposed, and vetoed. If the situation hasn't improved long before that, Repubs will be swept out of office in a tidal wave- and the chances of this "surge" having the desired effect are really quite slim...

Welcome to the realm of "personal responsibility", gentlemen- it's what you've wanted all along, right?

Well, maybe not, not when it means taking responsibility for disastrous domestic, fiscal, and foreign policy decisions based on a dreamland rightwing ideology... better to blame the opposition, if you can, because they're just as bad, right?

In other words, the Dems are willing to let the troops pay the price, just to prove a point?

swell. real classy bunch you elected...

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, palehorse, the only reason the troops are paying any price at all in iraq is because of arrogance and pride on the part of the Bush Admin and their fanbois...

If Bush wants to continue the occupation, then he'll have to be the one to figure out what other military porkbarrels he'll need to cut back on to fund the effort- If he fails to support the troops, it'll be by choice, rather than necessity...

So, uhh, what you're saying is that Bush would be willing to have the troops pay the price for his stubbornness, just to prove a point?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Well, palehorse, the only reason the troops are paying any price at all in iraq is because of arrogance and pride on the part of the Bush Admin and their fanbois...

If Bush wants to continue the occupation, then he'll have to be the one to figure out what other military porkbarrels he'll need to cut back on to fund the effort- If he fails to support the troops, it'll be by choice, rather than necessity...

So, uhh, what you're saying is that Bush would be willing to have the troops pay the price for his stubbornness, just to prove a point?

Either way, YOU seem awfully willing to let the troops pay the price.

Since the Dems now realize that Bush will veto anything short of the funds required to keep our military healthy, the onus is on them to allow those funds to get to the troops. Too many of them, and you, are willing to let the soldiers pay a larger price than necessary, just to prove various political points. Too many of them, and you, are busy pointing fingers and placing blame - while doing so does nothing for the troops in harms way.

And, quite frankly, that's make me sick of the whole lot of you and them.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Well, palehorse, the only reason the troops are paying any price at all in iraq is because of arrogance and pride on the part of the Bush Admin and their fanbois...

If Bush wants to continue the occupation, then he'll have to be the one to figure out what other military porkbarrels he'll need to cut back on to fund the effort- If he fails to support the troops, it'll be by choice, rather than necessity...

So, uhh, what you're saying is that Bush would be willing to have the troops pay the price for his stubbornness, just to prove a point?

Either way, YOU seem awfully willing to let the troops pay the price.

Since the Dems now realize that Bush will veto anything short of the funds required to keep our military healthy, the onus is on them to allow those funds to get to the troops. Too many of them, and you, are willing to let the soldiers pay a larger price than necessary, just to prove various political points. Too many of them, and you, are busy pointing fingers and placing blame - while doing so does nothing for the troops in harms way.

And, quite frankly, that's make me sick of the whole lot of you and them.

"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want."

Problem is that you, yourself, are in the mindset that you're going to "win this."

No matter the might of the U.S. military, which has done its job quite well for the most part - fact is there is "no winning" this....

You're not going to change the mindset of the Middle East, Iraq, Iran....

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Well, palehorse, the only reason the troops are paying any price at all in iraq is because of arrogance and pride on the part of the Bush Admin and their fanbois...

If Bush wants to continue the occupation, then he'll have to be the one to figure out what other military porkbarrels he'll need to cut back on to fund the effort- If he fails to support the troops, it'll be by choice, rather than necessity...

So, uhh, what you're saying is that Bush would be willing to have the troops pay the price for his stubbornness, just to prove a point?

Either way, YOU seem awfully willing to let the troops pay the price.

Since the Dems now realize that Bush will veto anything short of the funds required to keep our military healthy, the onus is on them to allow those funds to get to the troops. Too many of them, and you, are willing to let the soldiers pay a larger price than necessary, just to prove various political points. Too many of them, and you, are busy pointing fingers and placing blame - while doing so does nothing for the troops in harms way.

And, quite frankly, that's make me sick of the whole lot of you and them.

That's boloney, no funds have been denied our troops.

Stow your phony indignation, our troops have no need for it.

Shame.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Well, palehorse, the only reason the troops are paying any price at all in iraq is because of arrogance and pride on the part of the Bush Admin and their fanbois...

If Bush wants to continue the occupation, then he'll have to be the one to figure out what other military porkbarrels he'll need to cut back on to fund the effort- If he fails to support the troops, it'll be by choice, rather than necessity...

So, uhh, what you're saying is that Bush would be willing to have the troops pay the price for his stubbornness, just to prove a point?

Either way, YOU seem awfully willing to let the troops pay the price.

Since the Dems now realize that Bush will veto anything short of the funds required to keep our military healthy, the onus is on them to allow those funds to get to the troops. Too many of them, and you, are willing to let the soldiers pay a larger price than necessary, just to prove various political points. Too many of them, and you, are busy pointing fingers and placing blame - while doing so does nothing for the troops in harms way.

And, quite frankly, that's make me sick of the whole lot of you and them.

That's boloney, no funds have been denied our troops.

Stow your phony indignation, our troops have no need for it.

Shame.

The DoD has already been forced to shift monies around to compensate for the delayed supplemental funds; and it is getting worse every day. That is entirely unacceptable.

And I am one of those troops, so don't try and tell me what we have a need for.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeh, right, Palehorse.

Any time GWB values the troops more than his Neocon ambitions for global hegemony, he'll agree to their orderly withdrawal over a period of time, which is what Dems have very reasonably offered.

Under the scenario I proposed, Bush can, indeed, support the occupation in grand style, with the troops deployed lacking for nothing, or at least nothing more than they lack for today. OTOH, He won't be able to support all the pet projects of obsolete cold war thinking at the same time. We'll get to see just how much he really does care for the safety of our young men and women, and how much of our limited resources he's willing to devote to that vs high dollar high tech toys that serve no useful purpose in the WoT....

It's not like cancelling a $100B in military industrial pork would endanger the nation in the slightest. Start with the $20B in planned spending on new nukes, move on to the supercool yet pointless FA22, new destroyers, NMD, V-22 Osprey flying truck, and a few other porky projects to pick up the slack...

It's not like we really need to fork over almost half of the world's military spending to defend ourselves.. from what? Terrar? Asymmetric warfare? Both methods are specifically designed to circumvent conventional forces... we had the world's mightiest military on 9/11, which served us not at all... What makes anybody think that more of the same will yield anything other than more of the same results?

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Well, palehorse, the only reason the troops are paying any price at all in iraq is because of arrogance and pride on the part of the Bush Admin and their fanbois...

If Bush wants to continue the occupation, then he'll have to be the one to figure out what other military porkbarrels he'll need to cut back on to fund the effort- If he fails to support the troops, it'll be by choice, rather than necessity...

So, uhh, what you're saying is that Bush would be willing to have the troops pay the price for his stubbornness, just to prove a point?

Either way, YOU seem awfully willing to let the troops pay the price.

Since the Dems now realize that Bush will veto anything short of the funds required to keep our military healthy, the onus is on them to allow those funds to get to the troops. Too many of them, and you, are willing to let the soldiers pay a larger price than necessary, just to prove various political points. Too many of them, and you, are busy pointing fingers and placing blame - while doing so does nothing for the troops in harms way.

And, quite frankly, that's make me sick of the whole lot of you and them.

That's boloney, no funds have been denied our troops.

Stow your phony indignation, our troops have no need for it.

Shame.

The DoD has already been forced to shift monies around to compensate for the delayed supplemental funds; and it is getting worse every day. That is entirely unacceptable.

And I am one of those troops, so don't try and tell me what we have a need for.

Yes and I appreciate your service, but everyone knew that DoD would shift funding to cover present needs...it has been done many times before. It is not only acceptable, it is practically routine.
What I objected to was that you accuse the Dems of playing politics with troop funding, forgetting that the same argument could be made about the Bush administration.

Furthermore, you accuse Jhhnn of "pointing fingers and placing blame", when that is exactly what you yourself are doing. :disgust:

Let's be fair here.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yeh, right, Palehorse.

Any time GWB values the troops more than his Neocon ambitions for global hegemony, he'll agree to their orderly withdrawal over a period of time, which is what Dems have very reasonably offered.

Under the scenario I proposed, Bush can, indeed, support the occupation in grand style, with the troops deployed lacking for nothing, or at least nothing more than they lack for today. OTOH, He won't be able to support all the pet projects of obsolete cold war thinking at the same time. We'll get to see just how much he really does care for the safety of our young men and women, and how much of our limited resources he's willing to devote to that vs high dollar high tech toys that serve no useful purpose in the WoT....

It's not like cancelling a $100B in military industrial pork would endanger the nation in the slightest. Start with the $20B in planned spending on new nukes, move on to the supercool yet pointless FA22, new destroyers, NMD, V-22 Osprey flying truck, and a few other porky projects to pick up the slack...

It's not like we really need to fork over almost half of the world's military spending to defend ourselves.. from what? Terrar? Asymmetric warfare? Both methods are specifically designed to circumvent conventional forces... we had the world's mightiest military on 9/11, which served us not at all... What makes anybody think that more of the same will yield anything other than more of the same results?

Alright Mr. Clinton, easy with the military cutbacks, ok? One of the reasons we are stretched so thin today is due to the massive cutbacks initiated by President Clinton during the 90's. They were not a good thing given the new global threat level.

So keep your hands off our new weapons and solders.

Please and thank you.