SMALL - espritmodel.com SMALL - Telemetry SMALL - Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Jul 18, 2007, 10:46 AM
God is good
Viper Pilot's Avatar
Banjul
Joined Jan 2001
4,246 Posts
Discussion
Marathon Bush Bash

The Dems have had over 18 hours to sway Repubs onto their side, but their main concerns are not the Bill, but with bashing President Bush and worrying over slogans.

They claim it is the Repubs that are delaying voting on the bill, but it is not.

I'm sure the Repubs would love a vote on the bill. The 60 votes necessary are not there, and the bill will be defeated. The Dems, therefore, are using this marathon bash to delay the voting.
Viper Pilot is offline Find More Posts by Viper Pilot
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2007, 11:30 AM
God is good
Viper Pilot's Avatar
Banjul
Joined Jan 2001
4,246 Posts
I was apparently wrong on this. The Senate voted 52-47 NOT to end debate, falling short of the required 60 votes.
Viper Pilot is offline Find More Posts by Viper Pilot
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2007, 11:54 AM
Out of Time
United States, TX
Joined Jul 2003
1,092 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viper Pilot
I was apparently wrong on this. The Senate voted 52-47 NOT to end debate, falling short of the required 60 votes.
Don't confuse a vote to end/continue the "debate" (yea, right) with a vote on a bill itself.
I personally like this stunt by the Dems because it allows all the evil Conservatives who own talk radio to the total exclusion of any Left viewpoints to make the Dems look like fools.

Of course, it doesn't take talk radio to do that. They take care of that all by themselves.

HF
Highflight is offline Find More Posts by Highflight
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2007, 11:59 AM
God is good
Viper Pilot's Avatar
Banjul
Joined Jan 2001
4,246 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highflight
Don't confuse a vote to end/continue the "debate" (yea, right) with a vote on a bill itself. . . .
I understand the difference. What suprises me is that if they have enough votes to continue the debate, it follows that they have enough votes to defeat this amendment. Why not just end debate and vote? Worrysome to me!
Viper Pilot is offline Find More Posts by Viper Pilot
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2007, 12:26 PM
Trampling out the vintage
Joined Feb 2002
1,893 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viper Pilot
I was apparently wrong on this. The Senate voted 52-47 NOT to end debate, falling short of the required 60 votes.
It doesn't matter that you were wrong. You knew your conclusion before you began to type. "All things not extreme right are bad." It's just a matter of typing until you find some reason, doesn't matter about quality of the reason, to support you view.

I often wish my world was as simple as yours and HF's. My problem is I know many conservative Republicans who make excellent and well-reasoned arguments on many matters surrounding Iraq.

Over 66% of Republican Senators (straw poll) think a major policy shift is needed on Iraq that decreases the exposure of our troops and the cost. They cannot however exactly agree and so right now they are opposing these resolutions or - - fillibustering (that would be the rule they tried to deprive the Democrats of; no hipocrisy there eh?).

Get with your cohorts and try figure out a constructive solution instead of whining about those who are actually doing something to fix Bushmess.
4 Scale is offline Find More Posts by 4 Scale
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2007, 12:45 PM
Trampling out the vintage
Joined Feb 2002
1,893 Posts
IMO Senate Republicans are going through classic denial on Iraq. They know the policy is not working (straw poll results) but look at the alternatives - including the Democratic-sponsored mandatory withdrawal dates - and see bad consequences to those as well. So they are frozen, and therefore they fillibuster.

The Congress must rise to the moment. Those people need to read the United States Constitution. They are a separate and co-equal branch of government. The Executive Branch has gotten the country into a disasterous war and has no plan. Congress must step forward and lead since the Executive cannot.

History is watching. So far, Congress is failing along with the Executive.

Perhaps I shall sue the United States for criminal negligence in Iraq and the Judicial Branch will fix the mess.
4 Scale is offline Find More Posts by 4 Scale
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2007, 12:49 PM
God is good
Viper Pilot's Avatar
Banjul
Joined Jan 2001
4,246 Posts
"Straw polls" . . . right. Would you care to show the origins and results of these "polls"?
Viper Pilot is offline Find More Posts by Viper Pilot
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2007, 01:45 PM
Trampling out the vintage
Joined Feb 2002
1,893 Posts
VP I cannot, it was a verbal comment by a Newsweek beat reporter. Look around, see what the pundits are saying. Most Republicans are unhappy about Iraq.
4 Scale is offline Find More Posts by 4 Scale
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2007, 02:17 PM
In Development Now
Indiana_Geoff's Avatar
Joined May 2005
448 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Smith
The Congress must rise to the moment. Those people need to read the United States Constitution. They are a separate and co-equal branch of government. The Executive Branch has gotten the country into a disasterous war and has no plan. Congress must step forward and lead since the Executive cannot.
Impossible. Only Congress can delcare war. It has done so, so we are at war.
Indiana_Geoff is online now Find More Posts by Indiana_Geoff
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2007, 02:23 PM
Eye Drather Beef Lying
ElectRick's Avatar
Jacksonville, FL
Joined Aug 2002
2,696 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana_Geoff
Impossible. Only Congress can delcare war. It has done so, so we are at war.
Maybe they can declare the official date today to be October 10, 2002*.

Rick

*LTUP disclaimer: This post is intended as political humor. Not to be taken seriously.
ElectRick is offline Find More Posts by ElectRick
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2007, 04:32 PM
Trampling out the vintage
Joined Feb 2002
1,893 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana_Geoff
Impossible. Only Congress can delcare war. It has done so, so we are at war.
It never declared war. It abdicated its constitutional authority to the Executive in a cowardly vote. That vote and the pre-midturm manipulation by the majority that set it up ranks as one of the most shameful things a branch of the US Govt. has ever done.

Their disgraceful strategy: if the war goes well we can take credit, if it does not we can blame Bush. All who voted 'yea' signed on for that. Those who questioned the wisdom of pre-emptive action on obviously trumped-up intel but voted yea anyway to benefit from the two-faced strategy were perhaps the worst cowards of all. Read many Dems.

Congress retains the power to raise and fund armies, and by inference the power to cease funding those armies. The time has come for the Congress to cease funding this war, and those who cry crocodile tears and engage in shameless manipulation by whining about how de-funding the war is somehow "not supporting the troops" should be ignored.

It will take statesmanship and courage to de-fund in the face of Republican sleaze tactics. The nation, history and our brave soldiers who long ago accomplished their mission await the action of Congress.
4 Scale is offline Find More Posts by 4 Scale
Last edited by 4 Scale; Jul 18, 2007 at 04:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2007, 04:39 PM
Out of Time
United States, TX
Joined Jul 2003
1,092 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Smith
Their disgraceful strategy: if the war goes well we can take credit, if it does not we can blame Bush. All who voted 'yea' signed on for that. Those who questioned the wisdom of pre-emptive action on obviously trumped-up intel but voted yea anyway to benefit from the two-faced strategy were perhaps the worst cowards of all. Read many Dems.
You're finally gettin' it, Greg. Welcome aboard.

Must be a full moon or something when I see some of us on different sides starting to understand things the same way.
Not that there's anything wrong with that...

HF
Highflight is offline Find More Posts by Highflight
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2007, 04:46 PM
Trampling out the vintage
Joined Feb 2002
1,893 Posts
HF glad to join you then. I do not and have never had any quarrel with you, only a disagreement with your views.
4 Scale is offline Find More Posts by 4 Scale
Last edited by 4 Scale; Jul 18, 2007 at 07:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2007, 05:10 PM
In Development Now
Indiana_Geoff's Avatar
Joined May 2005
448 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Smith
It never declared war. It abdicated its constitutional authority to the Executive in a cowardly vote. That vote and the pre-midturm manipulation by the majority that set it up ranks as one of the most shameful things a branch of the US Govt. has ever done.
Is this unclear to you?

Quote:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.


(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.
It looks like a modern declaration of war to me.
Indiana_Geoff is online now Find More Posts by Indiana_Geoff
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2007, 05:27 PM
Suspended Account
badaltitude's Avatar
kentucky
Joined Dec 2003
577 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana_Geoff
Is this unclear to you?



It looks like a modern declaration of war to me.
\\


No surprise there. But it is not a declaration of war.

Whatever 'war' bush started was lost long ago. It's just a question of how many more will die while the republicans scramble for political cover.
badaltitude is offline Find More Posts by badaltitude
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools