0 for 40

Discussion in 'World Events' started by otheadp, Nov 13, 2007.

  1. otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6845.html

    why do you think that is? is it because most Democrats support Bush's efforts and refuse to vote against it? that despite talking shit to the camera to score points with the anti-war public, they actually know that what Bush is trying to do is actually necessary? that Bush is a good leader?

    zero for forty???

    i can't think of any other explanations
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    They're all terrified of being labeled as "not supporting the troops." Pissing their pants.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    if the majority of the public is against the war, then they wouldn't mind defunding "the troops" (the war actually, not the troops). the Dems would have popular support. they need not worry about being labeled as this or that.

    so either the war is more popular than CNN tells us, or Dems know something that the population doesn't -- that being the nuances that Bush's decisions are affected by. that he is not incompetent, that he is not a Nazi, that he is doing the right things for the country.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Everyone seems to think America is a democracy. It's not. It's a Republic. The Democrats, for all their statements to the contrary, realize this. They understand that regardless of what polls say there are dozens of seats they would lose if they "cut and run," as the Republicans would say. In other words, this is all about elections and keeping and maintaining power.

    What kills me is that there are people out there who honestly thought the Democrats would behave differently.
     
  8. otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    but they're in power now. if they're aspiring to continue to have the same power as they do now, then what's the point?

    i think you're wrong. it's not that they're going along to stay in power. i think it's that they believe Bush is on the right track. that is all.
     
  9. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    They are not "in power". Their majority is slim, not enough to override a veto.
     
  10. otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    Bush's TOTAL amount of vetoes of his entire 7 year presidency is 6, with 1 of them overriden.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes

    we're talking about FOURTY failed bills. that leaves at least 35 bills failing with out him using his veto.
     
  11. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    That's the talking point of your party, and frankly, I'm sick of hearing it. It removes any and all responsibility from the Dems until some future date arrives when they have more members or a Democratic president. That's a bunch of rot.

    If the Dems are such people of principle, then they should act and force numerous vetoes or work toward a legitimate compromise both parties can live with. But they won't, and everybody knows it, because they aren't going to yank the troops out (and they never intended to yank the troops out), as that would injure them in next year's election.
     
  12. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Few Republicans are willing to comprimise, Bush least of all. Biden mentioned why cutting off the funding would be a mistake, it would rob our troops of needed equipment like IED-proof trucks.
     
  13. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    And I seem to recall he was booed for it at a presidential debate. Which begs the question, what did the Democrats run on in 2006? What did they promise their base?
     
  14. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    But the main point is, spider, that those bills NEVER even came close to a veto - they never made it through congress which is controlled by the Democrats. And even if it is a slim majority it's STILL a majority.

    So your statement is a non-starter - doesn't even apply to the situation.
     
  15. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Democrats disagree with each other, I acknowledge that. I happen to think it's a strength. Their faults really do not measure up to the fantastic mistake the Cons made, which they are now trying to fix.
     
  16. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Exactly.
     
  17. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Nevertheless, the prospect of a veto could be part of the calculation.
     
  18. otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    any defunding would be of the WAR, not of the troops.
    so pay for enough bullets and armour etc, but once the supplies are depleted, it would be the President's responsibility to remove the troops from harm.

    for all the shit talking the Dems do on CNN about withdrawing as soon as possible, there are no bills being passed or supported for a withdrawal (gradual or any other). i think there was 1 introduced, but it was easily crushed.

    the Dems don't REALLY want to withdraw. they just like to say they do to undermine the President and the Republican party so they can gain power.
     
  19. otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    ok - great. so introduce a bill, get a majority (but not enough to override a veto), and have Bush veto it -- at least it'll show that the Dems genuinely want a withdrawal.

    but they won't do that, because they don't want one
     
  20. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    But he wouldn't remove the troops from harm because he doesn't give a shit about them. This just amounts to a political attack, you guys are criticizing the Democrats for not ending a policy that you support. Bush doesn't believe in any check on executive power. Even if he signed such a bill, he would just write some signing statement about how he doesn't have to follow it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2007
  21. otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    i'll ignore the nonsense, and will only state the obvious: if Bush leaves the troops in with out equipment and armour, his support will more than collapse. he will be lynched by every segment of American society

    no. we're criticizing teh Democrats for hypocricy - they say they want to end the war ASAP when they talk to CNN, but their actions indicate quite the opposite. so they are more than hypocrites - they demoralize the country and the troops with negative messages and empty threats they have no intention on following through with, just to gain more political points in future elections.

    he has used the Veto power only 6 times in the last 7 years.

    Clinton, in comparison, used it 36 times. the last President who has used the Veto less as little as Bush was in office in the early 1920s.

    i'd say congress is running the country by the looks of it. or they're going along for some strange (sarcasm) reason.
     
  22. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    His support has already collapsed, but the other Republicans don't want to admit it, because they would have to admit failure. We do want to end the war as soon as possible without harming the troops, nothing the Democrats have done contradicts this.

    There are enough Republicans voting with Bush to make any withdraw attempts by the congress virtually impossible.

    You want the Democrats to defund the war completely so you can use it as an election issue. We want Republicans to wake up and smell the blood on their hands.
     
  23. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    What about Pelosi's stunt with the Armenian business? That was either incredibly stupid or a backdoor attempt to disrupt the flow of supplies to the War.

    I also dispute your endless cheerleading for the chicanery practiced by the Democrats. They run around saying one thing and doing another (nothing). Then they pass a bunch of meaningless resolutions. It's all a game.

    There are also some Democrats.
     

Share This Page