the democratic congress is worse than the republican congress

[angelofdeath]

is that possible?

 

from ron paul:

 

"For those who thought a Democratic congress would end the war in Iraq, think again: their new budget proposes supplemental funds totaling about $150 billion in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009 for Iraq. This is in addition to the ordinary Department of Defense budget of more than $500 billion, which the Democrats propose increasing each year just like the Republicans."

[lord_casek]

well, they hand us this paradigm of two party government, and then they expect us to believe they are seperate and nothing like one another. then, the democrats sign the exact same bills that the republican party supports.

[Theo Huxtable.]

the democrats are confused

 

republicans promote the image that "staying the course" will work, but deep down they are unsure of the endgame scenario themselves.

 

bush's little 30,000 troop surge of "slow escalation" won't work. it amazes me that bush is making the same mistakes that were made in vietnam, and not learning. in vietnam, instead of the u.s. crushing the enemy with the full force of its armed forces, the u.s. instead did the "slow escalation" of troops and bombing runs little by little so to not "anger" the american public and the rest of the world. don't fight a war if you're not going to go all-out. rumsfeld should have used a large force from the very beginning in march 2007 (a minimum of 200,000 troops). at this point it may be too late -- and doing a large increase now would probably greatly anger the american public to levels not seen since the vietnam era.

 

another reason 30,000 troops is misleading to the general public -- most of these 30,000 will not be on the "front lines" capturing or killing insurgents, terrorists, and sunni-shiite clashers/instigators. most of the contingent of these brigades and battallions are support -- they sit in the background pressing buttons and filing paper work and moving supplies. probably about 10% of that 30,000 force will actually be dealing with the bloodshed firsthand.

[the.crooked]

ooohhh aod, how long youve been gone.

 

 

whatcha been up to?

[fat ralphy]

FUCKIN BULLSHIT BECAUSE THEY MUST FUND THE WAR ITS ALREADY GOING ..SECONDLY THEY CANT WITHDRAWL BECAUSE BUSH HAS THREATENED TO VETO ANY LEGISLATION THAT PROPOSES WITHDRAWL EVEN IN PHASES....IT ALL COMES DOWN TO HOW GOOD CAN CONGRESS BE WHEN THE ARE WORKING UNDER A DICTATOR LIKE BUSH...HE NEEDS TO REALIZE HE IS PRESIDENT NOT KING

[angelofdeath]

"THEY MUST FUND THE WAR ITS ALREADY GOING"

 

hmmm... seems to me if you de-fund a war, it will cease pretty quick. i point to vietnam.

congress has the authority as it stands right now to stop the war. there isnt even an official declaration of war. but everyone in congress except kuchinich and paul dont want to talk about that. congress actually holds more power than bush. they can hold him accountable, they are just a bunch of a pussies.

[fat ralphy]

think of the world opinion though, its like going into someones house shitting all over and then leaving without cleaning up...we clearly cant just abandon the iraq situation and that is why we cant abruptly withdrawl im saying this and im antiwar

[Stereotype V.0002]

hmmm... seems to me if you de-fund a war, it will cease pretty quick. i point to vietnam.

 

Yeah it was over for us... but how did that work out for Vietnam and Cambodia when our govt defunded Lon Nol and South Vietnam? Do false pretenses for the invasion justify letting the Iraqis clean up our mess through genocide? But people will still argue that the violence is only because of the US presence (while also being a civil war) and everyone will hold hands when the infidels leave as opposed to the death squads operating completely uninhibited.

[fermentor666]

is that possible?

 

from ron paul:

 

"For those who thought a Democratic congress would end the war in Iraq, think again: their new budget proposes supplemental funds totaling about $150 billion in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009 for Iraq. This is in addition to the ordinary Department of Defense budget of more than $500 billion, which the Democrats propose increasing each year just like the Republicans."

 

 

This is so vague it doesn't even begin to support your claim.

[Theo Huxtable.]

 

rumsfeld should have used a large force from the very beginning in march 2007

 

 

*march 2003

[LIVERWURST*]

I understand what they are doing - The US populations consensus is pretty much that they want out of the war, not that they want out at any cost (though some do feel that way). It seems reasonable to keep the debate alive by keeping Iraq in Bills and the news for the rest of the time Bush is in office, but not just jumping out next week. Not only is it advantageous to Democratic election strategy, but it also keeps the voice of criticism alive (in this case the voice being the majority of Americans) and drowning out the Bush spin machine.

 

Seems like a pretty reasonable/logical thing to me.

 

I do wish we had a parliamentarian government though.

[LIVERWURST*]

I was going to edit my thought but it would be more honest just to add: I think the war is a scam and Bush probably a criminal for lying to create the war. I do wish the Democrats would pull all the troops now, but it couldn't happen. Many Democrats still come from more center left if not right areas and could never support radical action such as that. What we have in congress is the result of a fucked up population which a taste for war, with many of the current detractors among the population 3 years ago supporting it. They now want us out because they don't care about Arabs and they're sick of it - not because they care about peace or what got us over there in the first place.

[angelofdeath]

think of the world opinion though, its like going into someones house shitting all over and then leaving without cleaning up...we clearly cant just abandon the iraq situation and that is why we cant abruptly withdrawl im saying this and im antiwar

 

you cant be anti war and want to continue an undeclared war. it is just plain hypocritical.

[angelofdeath]

This is so vague it doesn't even begin to support your claim.

 

its cool dude, i dont expect you to grasp anything over a 3rd grade comprehension level.

[angelofdeath]

I understand what they are doing - The US populations consensus is pretty much that they want out of the war, not that they want out at any cost (though some do feel that way). It seems reasonable to keep the debate alive by keeping Iraq in Bills and the news for the rest of the time Bush is in office, but not just jumping out next week. Not only is it advantageous to Democratic election strategy, but it also keeps the voice of criticism alive (in this case the voice being the majority of Americans) and drowning out the Bush spin machine.

 

Seems like a pretty reasonable/logical thing to me.

 

I do wish we had a parliamentarian government though.

 

it just shows the democrats up as a bunch of wimps. they talk a good game, but in the end are no better than the republicans. being against a war, but voting to support it and keep it going to keep criticism to a minimum, and to just do your job... is sort of like if you were part of hitlers government. if you were 'against' hitler but you were 'just doing your job.'

 

it is high time politicians stopped worrying about 'getting elected' or 'reelected' and started doing what was right.

[fermentor666]

its cool dude, i dont expect you to grasp anything over a 3rd grade comprehension level.

 

 

Just like I expect you to respond like a third grader with insults, name-calling, and stereotyping. Instead you just say "the democrats are bad because they are spending money", but you don't say on what, and you don't say how much compared to the Republican congress over the last 14 years. Instead you make a bullshit thread with the sole intention of pissing people off and you failed even in that, because everyone has just come to except your consistent ability to act like a third grader.

[fermentor666]

And I know you don't mean what you said, because we've been able to at least discuss things a little bit before devolving into insults.

[LIVERWURST*]

it just shows the democrats up as a bunch of wimps. they talk a good game, but in the end are no better than the republicans. being against a war, but voting to support it and keep it going to keep criticism to a minimum, and to just do your job... is sort of like if you were part of hitlers government. if you were 'against' hitler but you were 'just doing your job.'

 

it is high time politicians stopped worrying about 'getting elected' or 'reelected' and started doing what was right.

 

If you view the republicans as Nazis you should do less to detract from their opposition.

[WORDISM45]

that would make sense if the "opposition" where doing anything different

[angelofdeath]

hahaha, the democrats are not any kind of opposition. i guess you havent noticed the left/right big government/police state dynamic over the past, oh, 80 years.

 

how can the dems be any opposition when they fund a war they are 'against?' how can i like the democrats when.... what is their complaint about bush? he lied us into war? he isnt spending enough money on domestic programs? even though he has outspent even the great LBJ? he should have the army in darfur instead of iraq?

they support bush's open border agenda, support a north american union, support the UN, they want entangling alliances with way to many countries, they want an absurd and insane war on drugs continued and during clinton expanded it, they claim to support civil liberty when in fact were passing 'domestic terrorist' laws in the 90's that were one step below the bush backed patriot act.

 

why would i support a party that supports a war they say they are against? i seem to recall clinton lying about kosovo the same way ghwb lied about panama. see a pattern here? there is not a dimes worth of difference between these parties. to support one is to support the other. the dems want a caring, compassionate state, the republicans want a state that unleashes justice and democracy on the world, but this cannot be. wishing for a state that only does good things is like wishing for a lion that only purrs and cuddles or an elephant that only takes tiny soft steps.

[fermentor666]

So by your logic, then, voting for the removal of troops from a warzone constitutes a pro-war agenda? You really are warped.

[Theo Huxtable.]

 

everyone go pick this up on dvd. this ain't no loose change conspiracy bullshit either. nothing but the substantiated truth

[angelofdeath]

"So by your logic, then, voting for the removal of troops from a warzone constitutes a pro-war agenda? You really are warped."

 

yeah, this resolution really got far. i know i know, they couldnt pass the resolution so now they must FUND it. i mean, its only right. cant get your way, give in and 'join the other side.'

great people these ideologically solid democrats are.

 

word...why we fight is pretty decent.

[Larry Pubes]

Not everyone was celebrating the passage of the Iraq spending bill on Friday. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, told Truthdig it’s “a disaster for the American people.” The presidential candidate went on to explain his dissatisfaction with his party: “It’s the same kind of thinking that led us into Iraq— that we didn’t have any alternatives.”

 

kucinich blasts dems.mp3 (12min)

[russell jones]

it just shows the democrats up as a bunch of wimps. they talk a good game, but in the end are no better than the republicans. being against a war, but voting to support it and keep it going to keep criticism to a minimum, and to just do your job... is sort of like if you were part of hitlers government. if you were 'against' hitler but you were 'just doing your job.'

 

it is high time politicians stopped worrying about 'getting elected' or 'reelected' and started doing what was right.

 

preach on brougham. :)

[leftwinghack]

you liberals need counseling ...all conspiracy therorists and shit .

life is better bieng a gun carrying redneck republican rather

than a fag lovin, america hating ,negative feeling crybaby

blame bush motherfucker like all of yall

[Larry Pubes]

ayo leftwingnut, your impersonation of a douchebag is spot on. you should change your name to summer's eve braahh...

 

[fermentor666]

"So by your logic, then, voting for the removal of troops from a warzone constitutes a pro-war agenda? You really are warped."

 

yeah, this resolution really got far. i know i know, they couldnt pass the resolution so now they must FUND it. i mean, its only right. cant get your way, give in and 'join the other side.'

great people these ideologically solid democrats are.

 

word...why we fight is pretty decent.

 

 

They pushed a bill through both houses that would force troop withdrawel, obviously not immediately. The only thing stopping them is the presidential veto and Bush is a Republican.

 

 

SONAR: I wasn't talking to you, bud, but you're fucking nuts guy.

[angelofdeath]

so then, why didnt they defund the war?

kuchinich is spot on.

 

we also cant forget the democratic congress gave bush the blank check to invade. to support one party is to support the other.

[the.crooked]

AOD-

 

The initial carte blanch came at a time when everyone's sense of patriotism hinged on support of an unproven and unpopular president. It was a sly political move. And if you remember it was not for the war on Iraq that this resolution was passed. It was right after 9/11. It was for the necessary powers to keep american soil safe from the terrorist world...

 

It was just never given up. If anything it was more like a dissolution of congress's efficacy in a single motion. They were blind by doing what they thought was all they could in light of the events that happened. It was foolish and wrong. Now we are reaping the unfortunate products of that act.

 

The attempts of the current congress are trying to herald in the outrageous and egregious delusions of power that Bush acts upon.

 

I saw on Fox News, once, a discussion about whether or not America actually needs the legislative branch. Now the ridiculousness of the discussion was obviously apparent, but look at the deeper motives. In some respects to plant the seed of doubt in the social subconscious is as good as dissolving congress itself. Doubt is a powerful tool.

 

Yes I agree that our legislative branch is bogged down by needless beurocratic complexity, misdirected intentions, and complacent politicians. However, rcasting complete judgment on them and giving up on believing they can actually accomplish something to fix what has occured in the last six years is foolish and not the solution best found at this point in time.

 

Fuck your utopic notions of Americana and personal autonomy. Like I have said time and time again to your unchanging and bullshit arguments, we need to do what little is possible now. Passing a funding resolution with a timetable attached is the smartest move dems, let alone congress can do to regain some bit of political face. Following the suggestions of the many panels created to evaluate our current position in Iraq, if I am not mistaken, the congress increased some aspects of funding to better help the troops who are already there.

 

We can all agree that to cut funding in the manner you are suggesting could, and would be, viewed as anti-troop rather than anti-war if one so wanted. This is also about limiting the power of the spin machine to cast votes against the war as votes against the troops. To vote to increase spending for troop supplies and better care is not the same as what you are ambiguously trying to posit here.

 

Fuck off and think of something actually useful to say rather than spitting out hateful dribble and avoiding the inevitable conclusion that it is our president who fucked us, lied to us and appealed to our basest sense of national pride to rob us of everything that makes this country a good place.

 

But I mean if you wanna ride Ron Paul's dick some more thats cool, we'll take it with the grain of salt he left on your chin when he nutted his ideology all over your face.