Comments: 15 Score: [-] 123 [+].
< 1 >
Posted: 1 year ago by dollyllama:
It's about freaking time.
Oh and this is great:
Bush objected to $9 billion in projects added during negotiations between the House and Senate. He hoped that his action, even though it is sure not to hold, would cast him as a friend to conservatives who demand a tighter rein on federal spending.
Bush never vetoed spending bills under the Republican Congress, despite budgetary increases then, too.
His war is so fiscally responsible. IDIOTS!
Score: [-] 31 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by ImNotBlue:
Don't forget to read this part:
But Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin applauded Bush for vetoing a "flawed, bloated bill. Instead of trying to override the veto, Congress should take this opportunity to fix the bill."
Stephen Ellis, vice president of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, said lawmakers should "go back to the drawing board and come back with a responsible bill that meets the country's needs while not sinking our fiscal ship."
This might be the first time Feingold and Bush are on the same page about... well, anything!
Score: [-] 11 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by dollyllama:
« ImNotBlue : Don't forget to read this part:
But Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin applauded Bush for vetoing a "flawed, bloated bill. Instead of trying to override the veto, Congress should take this opportunity to fix the bill."
Stephen Ellis, vice president of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, said lawmakers should "go back to the drawing board and come back with a responsible bill that meets the country's needs while not sinking our fiscal ship."
This might be the first time Feingold and Bush are on the same page about... well, anything! The most bloated thing in this administration is the war budget. Let's veto that freaking thing.
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by Dangerman:
Stephen Ellis... what governmental elected position does he hold again?
This "Bush" you all refer to...Do you mean President Bush?
President of the United States?
Or your crotch?
Score: [-] -22 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by Matoogs:
It's about time Bush started vetoing idiotic spending bills like this.
I sure hope we get somebody in 2008 who insists on smaller government and less extravagant spending. Yes, yes, I know your suggestion ;)
Score: [-] 13 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by dollyllama:
« Matoogs : It's about time Bush started vetoing idiotic spending bills like this.
I sure hope we get somebody in 2008 who insists on smaller government and less extravagant spending. Yes, yes, I know your suggestion ;) So he can continue spending trillions on an illegal war?
What??
Score: [-] 13 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by Dangerman:
I think if it was "Illegal" the war would have been stopped by now, don't you?
Yet, America continues to "Kick A$$".
Have faith in my country.
I mean OUR country.
Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax.
The Democrat Fight Song
Score: [-] -22 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by Matoogs:
« dollyllama : So he can continue spending trillions on an illegal war?
What?? Huh? Where did I say that?
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by dollyllama:
« Dangerman : I think if it was "Illegal" the war would have been stopped by now, don't you?
no. It IS illegal and it continues, so therefore, NO.
Yet, America continues to "Kick A$$".
What's your military experience before I continue this debate?
Have faith in my country.
I mean OUR country.
There's a sucker born every minute ~P.T. Barnum
Hmm, all ready to decide who gets to stay and who doesn't, how very totalitarian of you.
Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax.
The Democrat Fight Song
Borrow from China, Borrow from China, Borrow from China
The Republicant chant.
Score: [-] 20 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by ImNotBlue:
« dollyllama : no. It IS illegal and it continues, so therefore, NO. How is a war, voted and authorized by both the House and the Senate illegal? What "law" did it break?
What's your military experience before I continue this debate?
As I have mentioned before, the argument you're getting at is bogus. Just because someone hasn't served in the military, does not mean they are not allowed to have an opinion about this country, and its military actions. If the standard you want to put forth is that only people with direct experience are allowed to discuss, make policy, or have an opinion about those things... this would be a much quieter place to live. Can't vote for the school budget, unless you're a teacher. Can't vote to increase the water bill, unless you've worked in the business. And if we only take people with direct experience, what kind of experience is the right kind of experience? Should we only take the leaders, or can we accept the grunts too? Are the 'workers' opinions just as good as the 'managers'? Everybody is entitled to their opinion, experience or not. Those with experience may have more credibility… but the opinion from those without, may still be valid opinion.
There's a sucker born every minute ~P.T. Barnum
Hmm, all ready to decide who gets to stay and who doesn't, how very totalitarian of you.
I don't like defending or defining what others have said... but I believe Dangerman was saying "our" country... as in "all of ours"... not a possessive "ours not theirs."
I can't really comment on the subject of the veto... because I don't know enough about it. But I refuse to buy into the "Bush is bad, and everything he does is wrong line." As I pointed out before, this veto has the support of one of President Bush’s fiercest adversaries. But I don’t know… I haven’t made up my mind. You should be more careful using the “Bush is bad” line too often… lest people hear “the boy who cried wolf” one too many times.
Score: [-] 17 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by ArchAngel:
« dollyllama : The most bloated thing in this administration is the war budget. Let's veto that freaking thing. Frankly, dolly, your objection is little more than a red herring. The point is whether the water projects bill is worth passing or not, not the war.
Clearly we understand you oppose the war. It's not a song any of us hasn't heard/sang before.
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by dollyllama:
« ArchAngel : Frankly, dolly, your objection is little more than a red herring. The point is whether the water projects bill is worth passing or not, not the war.
Clearly we understand you oppose the war. It's not a song any of us hasn't heard/sang before. No, actually it's not, it's about bloated budgets. Not about 1 particular bill, it's about spending OUR hard earned tax dollars on things. So it's all encompassing, hardly a red herring.
Score: [-] 10 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by dollyllama:
« ImNotBlue : How is a war, voted and authorized by both the House and the Senate illegal? What "law" did it break? A war based on bogus information, bolstered by fear mongering and proven to be waged under false pretenses and against the will of the world body which we were instrumental in installing (the UN) is illegal. That a bunch of idiots in Congress voted for it does not make it legal.
As I have mentioned before, the argument you're getting at is bogus. Just because someone hasn't served in the military, does not mean they are not allowed to have an opinion about this country, and its military actions. If the standard you want to put forth is that only people with direct experience are allowed to discuss, make policy, or have an opinion about those things... this would be a much quieter place to live. Can't vote for the school budget, unless you're a teacher. Can't vote to increase the water bill, unless you've worked in the business. And if we only take people with direct experience, what kind of experience is the right kind of experience? Should we only take the leaders, or can we accept the grunts too? Are the 'workers' opinions just as good as the 'managers'? Everybody is entitled to their opinion, experience or not. Those with experience may have more credibility… but the opinion from those without, may still be valid opinion.
When did I say I wouldn't discuss this with someone without military experience? It's easier for me to point out the flaws in their theory of "kicking ass" if I know whether they served or not. That is why I separated out that part of his statement.
However, on to your missed point about not be able to vote for a budget unless you're a teacher this is not even in the same realm. If you're not a teacher you certainly won't know all the pitfalls of teaching, but that has nothing to do with a budget, paid for by the taxpayers (and paid by taxpayers who own real property, whether or not they have children) so the budget issue again is a public issue. Since the rest of your argument here is based on the incorrect notion of what I was saying I won't debate the rest, just see above.
I don't like defending or defining what others have said... but I believe Dangerman was saying "our" country... as in "all of ours"... not a possessive "ours not theirs."
You've gone and misinterpreted me every time I make a statement. So apparently you do enjoy it. But what Dangerman said was:
"Have faith in my country.
I mean OUR country."
Now perhaps his first sentence was meant to say OUR and he corrected it in the second, but doesn't he have a DELETE key on his keyboard, or a backspace?
I also took the OUR to mean all of ours, but since he first decided it was HIS and then thought better of it, it sounds like he's already being possessive and "oops" forgot himself.
However, Dangerman should be able to stick up for himself, if you can utter the words you should be able to back them up, so not sure why you've taken up his fight.
I can't really comment on the subject of the veto... because I don't know enough about it. But I refuse to buy into the "Bush is bad, and everything he does is wrong line." As I pointed out before, this veto has the support of one of President Bush’s fiercest adversaries. But I don’t know… I haven’t made up my mind. You should be more careful using the “Bush is bad” line too often… lest people hear “the boy who cried wolf” one too many times.
ONE of his fiercest adversaries. ONE.
This bill has the support of some of his fiercest allies too!
You should get to know more about the water bill, it's going to be critical for all of us. But please, find me a bill that's been passed by any congress in the last 50 years that doesn't have pork and special interest attached. None of Bush's bills have been free of that.
Your refusal to see the obvious, to pay attention to what he's done and what he continues to do may give you comfort, I'm not trying to change your mind, it makes no difference to me whether you believe it or not.
Considering how unpopular his regime is and how much actual hardcore evidence there is to support his wrong doings, flubs, mistakes, errors, omissions, failings and downright corruption I cannot really understand anyone supporting him, I'm sure you have your reasons but you'll never convince me that it's all "crying wolf". So we should just agree to disagree.
I will say thank you though for presenting a legit argument/discussion and not insulting me like you were doing in our initial debates. I respect that.
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by ImNotBlue:
« dollyllama : A war based on bogus information, bolstered by fear mongering and proven to be waged under false pretenses and against the will of the world body which we were instrumental in installing (the UN) is illegal. That a bunch of idiots in Congress voted for it does not make it legal. I see what you're saying here, however it has also been shown that the UN does not necessarily have our (the US's) best interests in mind. At the time we attack Iraq, the UN weapons inspectors had been having a hard time with Saddam... with him being secretive and giving the impression that he was hiding something.
Think of the pre-invasion of Iraq as a poker game between the US, Iraq, the UN, and everybody else. The US moves all-in, ready to put all their chips down, for a hand they feel is unbeatable. Iraq, is bluffing... they have a crummy hand, but they're not going to back down from the challenge. The UN wants to raise... you know, give the table another go round, before it decides what to do. And the rest of the world, just wants to check... watch to see what’s going on, not taking a real position, and they'll make their move after the cards are down. Oh, and Afghanistan is somewhere on the side... they've already folded, and only have a few chips left, so they're holding on to them. And then there's Iran... they're not sitting at the table yet, but every once in a while, they're giving Iraq a chip or two when everyone else is looking the other way... they'll sit down eventually, but for right now, they're just watching.
I have no idea where that analogy was going... but I liked it, so I ran with it.
Anyway... we've already learned from Darfur, that the UN can't really be trusted to make rules and laws about anything, with any sort of decisiveness. So I get what you're saying... but I wouldn't call it illegal. Ill advised... maybe. But not really illegal.
You've gone and misinterpreted me every time I make a statement. So apparently you do enjoy it. But what Dangerman said was:
"Have faith in my country.
I mean OUR country."
Now perhaps his first sentence was meant to say OUR and he corrected it in the second, but doesn't he have a DELETE key on his keyboard, or a backspace?
I also took the OUR to mean all of ours, but since he first decided it was HIS and then thought better of it, it sounds like he's already being possessive and "oops" forgot himself.
However, Dangerman should be able to stick up for himself, if you can utter the words you should be able to back them up, so not sure why you've taken up his fight.
I don't think his first sentence was an accident. However, I do think it was a meaningful correction. If he left it as "my" country, it would be possessive his, inferring an exclusion of you (or people who disagree with him). That's why the 'correction' came afterwards... "our" country... as in, even though we don't all agree, it is still "our" country.
And I only took up the fight because I felt like the interpretation was wrong. But hopefully he'll come back here, and clarify... and hopefully without using the 3rd person. Ugh on that.
ONE of his fiercest adversaries. ONE.
This bill has the support of some of his fiercest allies too!
Agreed. However, anytime an adversary as strong as Feingold sides with Bush, it's worthy of taking note. Wasn't Feingold one of the Senators calling for impeachment?! I was just pointing out that it seems to be less black and white then at first glance.
You should get to know more about the water bill, it's going to be critical for all of us. But please, find me a bill that's been passed by any congress in the last 50 years that doesn't have pork and special interest attached. None of Bush's bills have been free of that.
Find me any bill ever, that has been free of pork! This country has so much pork in its legislation, that you'd think congress was sponsored by Oscar Meyer. On the plus side, however, our laws do fit nicely on buns.
Your refusal to see the obvious, to pay attention to what he's done and what he continues to do may give you comfort, I'm not trying to change your mind, it makes no difference to me whether you believe it or not.
Considering how unpopular his regime is and how much actual hardcore evidence there is to support his wrong doings, flubs, mistakes, errors, omissions, failings and downright corruption I cannot really understand anyone supporting him, I'm sure you have your reasons but you'll never convince me that it's all "crying wolf". So we should just agree to disagree.
Wait, when did I say that I support him. I define my position towards him as "I don't necessarily love him... but I don't hate him either." That's the difference. The political climate in the country has become so nasty and mean spirited, that it's either you hate him, and everything he's done and continues to do... or you must a right-wing water carrier. That's intimidation tactics and straight up bullying.
I recognize a lot of the flubs, mistakes, and whatever else that's going on. I also recognize some of the positive things that are happening, and fail to see everything through a prism of negativity. That's why I originally posted in this topic. Not because I have a strong position either way on the water bill... but because some people are so caught up in "hate hate hate"... it's important that they be confronted with the fact that it's not always so cut and dry.
I know you think he has done nothing positive for the country... and that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion... and surely won't change your mind. But, at the same time, I can't allow your anger towards him and this administration, to turn any political thread into a "hate Bush, for the sake of hating Bush" conversation.
I will say thank you though for presenting a legit argument/discussion and not insulting me like you were doing in our initial debates. I respect that.
I think on blogs and sites like there, there is an inherent ability to get nasty real quick. I try not to get personally insulting or overly sarcastic, unless the situation requires it, or the conversation has degraded to that point. I thank you as well for having a serious chat about the topic at hand.
Score: [-] 18 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by dollyllama:
« ImNotBlue : I see what you're saying here, however it has also been shown that the UN does not necessarily have our (the US's) best interests in mind. At the time we attack Iraq, the UN weapons inspectors had been having a hard time with Saddam... with him being secretive and giving the impression that he was hiding something.
Evidence points to that he was, and certainly his advisors were and sorry but when young people are dying the s**t has to roll up hill.
Think of the pre-invasion of Iraq as a poker game between the US, Iraq, the UN, and everybody else. The US moves all-in, ready to put all their chips down, for a hand they feel is unbeatable. Iraq, is bluffing... they have a crummy hand, but they're not going to back down from the challenge. The UN wants to raise... you know, give the table another go round, before it decides what to do. And the rest of the world, just wants to check... watch to see what’s going on, not taking a real position, and they'll make their move after the cards are down. Oh, and Afghanistan is somewhere on the side... they've already folded, and only have a few chips left, so they're holding on to them. And then there's Iran... they're not sitting at the table yet, but every once in a while, they're giving Iraq a chip or two when everyone else is looking the other way... they'll sit down eventually, but for right now, they're just watching.
I have no idea where that analogy was going... but I liked it, so I ran with it.
That's not a bad analogy if so much weren't at stake I could look at as a game. If we didn't ask for the UN to be established JUST for this sort of circumstance, and if we didn't insist that other countries abide by the decisions of the UN when it comes to identical situations, I might agree. But it's not a game, lives are at stake, countries are at stake, freedoms are at stake. We DO insist other countries abide the decisions of the UN and for us not to do so makes us worse than Iran or Iraq or Venezuela or any other country. We are supposed to be the "world leaders" the rational, sensible, "advanced" ones. That's a big issue.
Anyway... we've already learned from Darfur, that the UN can't really be trusted to make rules and laws about anything, with any sort of decisiveness. So I get what you're saying... but I wouldn't call it illegal. Ill advised... maybe. But not really illegal.
The truth was obfuscated, facts weren't checked, truths were distorted, data was misused. Did Bush know, indications are that he did, it'll be years before we're certain because he's holding even the most innocuous documents as classified. Maybe he'll destroy any evidence of his actual knowledge (if there is any) but as I said in the beginning, the s**t has to roll up hill in this circumstance, he's the Chief Executive. He has to take responsibility and he doesn't.
Does the UN make mistakes, yes. Do we, apparently so. We have a world body to try to prevent that. We demand others abide by their decisions, we have no right to do differently.
I don't think his first sentence was an accident. However, I do think it was a meaningful correction. If he left it as "my" country, it would be possessive his, inferring an exclusion of you (or people who disagree with him). That's why the 'correction' came afterwards... "our" country... as in, even though we don't all agree, it is still "our" country.
And I only took up the fight because I felt like the interpretation was wrong. But hopefully he'll come back here, and clarify... and hopefully without using the 3rd person. Ugh on that.
Noted. And agreed on that whole 3rd person thing. It's just weird.
Agreed. However, anytime an adversary as strong as Feingold sides with Bush, it's worthy of taking note. Wasn't Feingold one of the Senators calling for impeachment?! I was just pointing out that it seems to be less black and white then at first glance.
It is worth noting. I'm sure there's things in the bill that shouldn't be. It could be trimmed, it could be revised. But it's been Bush's way or the highway for so long I think an override of this veto might just be a knock on that thick skull of his. That is what I applaud, that maybe it's about time they show a little back bone.
Find me any bill ever, that has been free of pork! This country has so much pork in its legislation, that you'd think congress was sponsored by Oscar Meyer. On the plus side, however, our laws do fit nicely on buns.
Now I'm hungry.
Wait, when did I say that I support him. I define my position towards him as "I don't necessarily love him... but I don't hate him either." That's the difference. The political climate in the country has become so nasty and mean spirited, that it's either you hate him, and everything he's done and continues to do... or you must a right-wing water carrier. That's intimidation tactics and straight up bullying.
I don't hate him either. It's more like despise. I initially liked the guy. Right up until he decided to declare war on Iraq and then I started really paying attention.
I recognize a lot of the flubs, mistakes, and whatever else that's going on. I also recognize some of the positive things that are happening, and fail to see everything through a prism of negativity. That's why I originally posted in this topic. Not because I have a strong position either way on the water bill... but because some people are so caught up in "hate hate hate"... it's important that they be confronted with the fact that it's not always so cut and dry.
I know you think he has done nothing positive for the country... and that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion... and surely won't change your mind. But, at the same time, I can't allow your anger towards him and this administration, to turn any political thread into a "hate Bush, for the sake of hating Bush" conversation.
You're absolutely correct. I can't think of a single positive.
He's ruining the economy, he's turning our allies against us, he's throwing this country into an obscene debt to a country that we should NEVER owe money to, his education stance is worthless, oil is higher than it's ever been, he's been instrumental in undermining the tenuous peace there was in the middle east, he's done nothing to actually secure our borders, this country is not in the least bit safer than it was before 9/11, we appear to be hypocrits to the entire world (we probably always have been, but he's made sure everyone knows it). I could go on.
Please if there's a real positive, I'd like to know what it is.
Also, every time I post about Bush it's going to be negative. You might just want to skip my posts on those. I try to skip over people's rah, rah, the war is good posts. I do try to (I've even succeeded a few times), really.
I think on blogs and sites like there, there is an inherent ability to get nasty real quick. I try not to get personally insulting or overly sarcastic, unless the situation requires it, or the conversation has degraded to that point. I thank you as well for having a serious chat about the topic at hand.
Yep, sometimes I get angry at someone's opinion and I start to type out a response filled with vitriol. Then I stop and edit before I hit submit. I may still sound angry but I try not to make it personal.
Glad we do agree on some things, even if they're minute, it's a start to our detente! :)
Score: [-] 0 [+].
< 1 >