Have The Dems Finally Found Their Nuts? [Archive] - The Diamond David Lee Roth Army

LoungeMachine

11-08-2007, 12:19 PM

Pelosi Says House to Vote on $50 Billion in War Funds (Update1)

By Laura Litvan

Nov. 8 (Bloomberg) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House will vote as early as tomorrow on a $50 billion measure funding the Iraq war for four months, while also setting a goal of bringing U.S. troops home within a year.

Pelosi said the measure would also have other strings attached, including a requirement that U.S. troops remaining in the country focus on improving security and not waging war.

``This is not a blank check for the president,'' Pelosi said.

President George W. Bush sent Congress a revised $196.4 billion spending request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other priorities last month, saying the money is needed to keep U.S. forces supplied and to continue the gradual troop reductions he announced in September.

It was the biggest such request by the administration since the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq began.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6yDUmD8gdFU&refer=home

LoungeMachine

11-08-2007, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine

saying the money is needed to keep U.S. forces supplied and to continue the gradual troop reductions he announced in September.

:rolleyes:

He never anounced any such "reduction"

The rotations were already in place for the "surge" [aka escalation]

Nice spin, Bloomberg

Guitar Shark

11-08-2007, 12:29 PM

Are you suggesting that Pelosi has nuts?

LoungeMachine

11-08-2007, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Are you suggesting that Pelosi has nuts?

Compared to Schumer, et al?

Elephant ones.

:gulp:

Guitar Shark

11-08-2007, 12:44 PM

What have you got against Schumer? I kinda like him.

As a legislator, that is, not his nuts...

LoungeMachine

11-08-2007, 12:55 PM

His caving on requiring Mukasey to go on the record that WB is illegal torture was his latest gaff.

He was the one who recommended Mukasey.

A simple "look, I brought you here, the least you can do is not make me look like a schmuck, and take a stand on this basic issue instead of ducking the issue."

Bush is on his 3rd AG

Wouldn't it be nice if we had one who stood up for THE LAW.

And threatening a recess appointment shouldnt make these Dems fold so easily.

LoungeMachine

11-08-2007, 01:00 PM

House to debate Iraq troop withdrawals

Thu Nov 8, 2007 11:50am

Congress negotiators omit war from Pentagon funds

Bush asks skeptical Congress for more war funds

Democrats positioned to widen majority in Senate

Iraq, Afghanistan wars to cost U.S. $190 bln in 2008

Washington(Reuters) - Democrats controlling the House of Representatives will try again to bring American combat in Iraq to an end when it debates legislation this week tying new war funds to troop withdrawals, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Thursday.

The legislation, similar to a bill President George W. Bush vetoed earlier this year, "gives voice to the concerns of the American people" over a war that is now in its fifth year and "with no light at the end of the tunnel," Pelosi, a California Democrat, said.

As early as Friday, the House will debate the plan that would give Bush only $50 billion of the $196 billion in new funds he has asked for to continue fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of the money would go to Iraq.

The House repeatedly this year has passed legislation aimed at ending the Iraq war, only to see it die in the Senate or killed by Bush.

Congress is expected to consider the rest of the funding sometime next year.

Pelosi said the money would fund the war for another four months. But as they have done in the past, House Democrats will try to attach conditions requiring the Pentagon to immediately begin withdrawing some of the 169,000 troops in Iraq and with the goal of completing the withdrawal by December, 2008.

Pelosi sidestepped a reporter's question on whether congressional support for the idea has grown enough to overturn an inevitable veto by Bush.

Under the plan, an unspecified number of U.S. troops would stay in Iraq to protect American diplomats and facilities, train Iraqis and perform counter-terrorism operations. It is thought that force would total in the tens of thousands.

Hardrock69

11-08-2007, 01:11 PM

They need to make that "tens of thousands" force up out of private contractors.

Bring the troops home.

Let the Iraqi government pay mercenaries directly.

:rolleyes:

LoungeMachine

11-08-2007, 01:49 PM

The U.S. Senate has voted to override President George W. Bush's veto of a water bill containing $2 billion in Everglades restoration funds.

The move comes two days after the U.S. House of Representatives approved the override, making the Water Resources Development Act law.

The legislation, which stalled in Congress in 2002, provides nearly $137.9 million to port projects, including $125 million to the Port of Miami; $7.5 million for a Lake Region Water Treatment Plant in Palm Beach County and $6.25 million for water reuse supply and a pipeline in Miami-Dade County. It also earmarks nearly $2 billion for the ongoing restoration of the Everglades.

"It is the largest restoration program ever undertaken in the world," Everglades Restoration Program Manager Sara Fain said in a news release. "Although WRDA is intended for passage every two years, Congress had not taken any action since 2000. This stalled legislation has limited progress for restoration projects that have not been able to receive authorization, and threatened the overall success of Everglades' restoration."

Bush cited the bill's cost -- $23 billion, including $9 million in projects added in negotiation in the House and Senate -- as the reason for his veto.

"I agree with the President that this bill lacks fiscal discipline. It seeks to spend too much on programs that have little need or reason for federal support," said U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez in a news release. "But we also have to recognize that the longer we wait for the federal government to meet its Everglades commitment, the more expensive the cost. In the past five years, the cost of the Indian River Lagoon project alone has increased by more than $100 million."

Outside of Florida, the legislation funds $3.6 billion in wetlands and coastal restoration, flood control and dredging in Louisiana, nearly $2 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers to build new locks on the upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers and $7 billion for hurricane mitigation in Mississippi and Louisiana, including securing 100-year levee protection in New Orleans.

Guitar Shark

11-08-2007, 02:02 PM

Is this the first successful override of a Junior veto? I think it is...

Hardrock69

11-08-2007, 02:30 PM

Bush cited the bill's cost -- $23 billion, including $9 million in projects added in negotiation in the House and Senate -- as the reason for his veto.

And so how many TRILLIONS of dollars has themonkey spent MURDERING OUR OWN TROOPS??!?!?!?!?!?

:rolleyes:

LoungeMachine

11-08-2007, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Is this the first successful override of a Junior veto? I think it is...

Play along with us, won't you?

L A M _ D _ _ _

:gulp:

Jim Shetterlini

11-08-2007, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Play along with us, won't you?

L A M _ D _ _ _

:gulp:

LAMBDICK?????? LAMPDOOR??????? LAMODRIP!!!!! I give up FUCK!

Jim Shetterlini

11-08-2007, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
The U.S. Senate has voted to override President George W. Bush's veto of a water bill containing $2 billion in Everglades restoration funds.

The move comes two days after the U.S. House of Representatives approved the override, making the Water Resources Development Act law.

The legislation, which stalled in Congress in 2002, provides nearly $137.9 million to port projects, including $125 million to the Port of Miami; $7.5 million for a Lake Region Water Treatment Plant in Palm Beach County and $6.25 million for water reuse supply and a pipeline in Miami-Dade County. It also earmarks nearly $2 billion for the ongoing restoration of the Everglades.

"It is the largest restoration program ever undertaken in the world," Everglades Restoration Program Manager Sara Fain said in a news release. "Although WRDA is intended for passage every two years, Congress had not taken any action since 2000. This stalled legislation has limited progress for restoration projects that have not been able to receive authorization, and threatened the overall success of Everglades' restoration."

Bush cited the bill's cost -- $23 billion, including $9 million in projects added in negotiation in the House and Senate -- as the reason for his veto.

"I agree with the President that this bill lacks fiscal discipline. It seeks to spend too much on programs that have little need or reason for federal support," said U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez in a news release. "But we also have to recognize that the longer we wait for the federal government to meet its Everglades commitment, the more expensive the cost. In the past five years, the cost of the Indian River Lagoon project alone has increased by more than $100 million."

Outside of Florida, the legislation funds $3.6 billion in wetlands and coastal restoration, flood control and dredging in Louisiana, nearly $2 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers to build new locks on the upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers and $7 billion for hurricane mitigation in Mississippi and Louisiana, including securing 100-year levee protection in New Orleans.

This was an authorization act that was vetoed...It still has to be voted upon for appropriaition. Simple gesture of growing some nuts not really finding them yet.

LoungeMachine

11-08-2007, 03:14 PM

Baby steps....

At this point I'd be thrilled if they could SPELL "nuts"

And I'd spot them the nu

Jim Shetterlini

11-08-2007, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Baby steps....

At this point I'd be thrilled if they could SPELL "nuts"

And I'd spot them the nu

NUTS_CK.

LoungeMachine

11-08-2007, 03:19 PM

What's a NUTSOCK?

You crazy Neo Cons.....

:gulp:

Jim Shetterlini

11-08-2007, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
What's a NUTSOCK?

You crazy Neo Cons.....

:gulp:

It covers a lambdick and lamb nuts. All sheeps know this!

knuckleboner

11-08-2007, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Is this the first successful override of a Junior veto? I think it is...

yep. but remember, since this is only like bush's 3rd or 4th total veto, it's not like there were a lot of opportunities.

Jim Shetterlini

11-08-2007, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by knuckleboner
yep. but remember, since this is only like bush's 3rd or 4th total veto, it's not like there were a lot of opportunities.

Point very well made.

LoungeMachine

11-08-2007, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by knuckleboner
yep. but remember, since this is only like bush's 3rd or 4th total veto, it's not like there were a lot of opportunities.

Not much point in Vetoing your own Lapdog Congress for the first 6 years...

Earmarks, Pork, Tax Cuts for the Uber rich, etc, etc...

It's not like he had a chance to threaten a veto in those years for Immigration Legistlation, or SS reform.....

Yet coincidently enough, there's been plenty of veto threats since last November....

Imagine my surprise...

:gulp:

LoungeMachine

11-08-2007, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Jim Shetterlini
Point very well made.

Sure, let kb take the softballs....

:gulp:

LoungeMachine

11-08-2007, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by Jim Shetterlini
It covers a lambdick and lamb nuts. All sheeps know this!

Okay,
That was worth giving you back your 5th star...

:gulp:

Jim Shetterlini

11-08-2007, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Okay,
That was worth giving you back your 5th star...

:gulp:

Yeah I don't understand all of this star business, but I do apppreciate the gesture.

Nickdfresh

11-08-2007, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
What have you got against Schumer? I kinda like him.

As a legislator, that is, not his nuts...

Yeah, Schumer is pretty solid. He brings home the bacon to NY, which needs it. And say what'cha want about Hillery, but she does the same...

Nickdfresh

11-08-2007, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by knuckleboner
yep. but remember, since this is only like bush's 3rd or 4th total veto, it's not like there were a lot of opportunities.

Not to mention that the Democrat's majority in Congress's houses are slim, and they have to override significant minority opposition (which is why they get a slightly bad rap, though not as bad as some would think).

LoungeMachine

11-08-2007, 04:35 PM

Razor slim..

And then add that one of the 2 "independents" LIEberman caucuses with the Dems...

And then walks across the aisle and votes Repuke everytime..

Any majority is superficial at best...

Give us what the Repukes had for 6 years and watch what happens.

Especially with a D in the WH

LoungeMachine

11-08-2007, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yeah, Schumer is pretty solid. He brings home the bacon to NY, which needs it. And say what'cha want about Hillery, but she does the same...

Which is great....

if you live in NY

The rest of us would just like to see a US SENATOR stand against this administration.

:cool:

I actually liked the guy until his Mukasey vote.

A vote for Mukasey is like giving W, Darth, and Gonzalez "get out of jail free" cards/

knuckleboner

11-08-2007, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Sure, let kb take the softballs....

:gulp:

hey, i'm good with the softballs...

http://www.tvheads.net/networkpages/larryking.jpg

Warham

11-08-2007, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Give us what the Repukes had for 6 years and watch what happens.

Especially with a D in the WH

Are you trying to give me nightmares?

Warham

11-08-2007, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
I actually liked the guy until his Mukasey vote.

A vote for Mukasey is like giving W, Darth, and Gonzalez "get out of jail free" cards/

Mukasey is a solid choice.

Why should he go on record about water boarding being torture. They can't get a consensus on what torture actually means. They make it sound like waterboarding is a common occurence, when it's only been used three times in five years.

Satan

11-08-2007, 09:34 PM

They sure as Hell had a consensus on waterboarding after WWII, when they charged the Japanese with WAR CRIMES for using it.

And Levin (see Keith Olbermann thread) certainly had that consensus when he allowed the torture to be done to himself.

And I'm the Devil. I KNOW torture.

Mukrazy has no excuse. Schumer has no excuse. Feinstein has no excuse. There is no justification. NONE.

LoungeMachine

11-08-2007, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by WAR

. They make it sound like waterboarding is a common occurence, when it's only been used three times in five years.

:rolleyes:

How the fuck would you know??

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

LoungeMachine

11-08-2007, 10:33 PM

He wont go on the record, because he was TOLD not to go on the record.

Bush, Cheney, and Gonzalez could be tried for WAR CRIMES.

But WARHAM knows when where, and how many times it's been used.

:rolleyes:

DrMaddVibe

11-09-2007, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
And I'd spot them the nu

You'd have to burp them out first!

Nickdfresh

11-09-2007, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
:rolleyes:

How the fuck would you know??

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

They can say whatever they want regarding those secret overseas CIA 'rendition' prisons, but spare me the "we rarely use it" crap...

There are Taliban fighters, who are not terrorists by any reasonable definition of the word, that HAVE been tortured at GITMO and in Afghanistan. That's not to mention the Iraqis inhumanely treated in the prison system set up there after the fall of Saddam, of which Abu Ghraib was just the tip of the iceberg.

These people working for Bush have ZERO.zero credibility when making such claims and statements...

LoungeMachine

11-09-2007, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by WAR

They make it sound like waterboarding is a common occurence, when it's only been used three times in five years.

Seriously, I'd love WAR toactually have to back up something for once....

This sounds exactly like something you'd hear on Rush Limpdick.

How do you know this War?

What sources are you using?

What makes you think these sources know?

In a time when we are rendering people without due process all over the world, what makes you think you could possibly know this?

And while we're at it....

If it worked so well kalhid Sheik Mohammed, the supposed MASTERMIND OF 9/11

Why hasn't he been charged and brought to trial like we did with the Blind Sheik after the 1993 bombing?

You know, back when we actually arrested, tried, convicted, and jailed and/or executed terorists???

Remember those days?

:rolleyes:

This post of WAR's is the same lame bullshit like his claim he pays for the wars everyday by going to work :rolleyes:

Care to cite your sources on "we've only used 4-5 times" ?????

Warham

11-09-2007, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Satan
They sure as Hell had a consensus on waterboarding after WWII, when they charged the Japanese with WAR CRIMES for using it.

And Levin (see Keith Olbermann thread) certainly had that consensus when he allowed the torture to be done to himself.

And I'm the Devil. I KNOW torture.

Mukrazy has no excuse. Schumer has no excuse. Feinstein has no excuse. There is no justification. NONE.

The Japanese were using it on uniformed enemy combatants. Even if I were to say that it's torture, how are Al Qaeda operatives protected by the Geneva Convention? What country do they represent?

Warham

11-09-2007, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Bush, Cheney, and Gonzalez could be tried for WAR CRIMES.

No, they can't be tried for war crimes.

And who the hell would charge them, Lounge, even if it were possible? The UN gets their bread buttered by the United States.

Warham

11-09-2007, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
:rolleyes:

How the fuck would you know??

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The CIA told me?

LoungeMachine

11-09-2007, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by WAR
The CIA told me?

:rolleyes:

What are you, Agent Zimmerman now?

Please cite your sources on this, or just tell me you were talking out of your ass...

:gulp:

Warham

11-09-2007, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
:rolleyes:

What are you, Agent Zimmerman now?

Please cite your sources on this, or just tell me you were talking out of your ass...

:gulp:

Go to any of the major news networks. They had stories on it.

Start with the liberal ABC, and move on from there.

LoungeMachine

11-09-2007, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by WAR
Go to any of the major news networks. They had stories on it.

Start with the liberal ABC, and move on from there.

No shit? :rolleyes:

Yeah, I've read those stories too, Rush.

NOT ONE gives a number of how many times it was used.

So I was right. You're talking out of your ass [again]

:gulp:

Warham

11-09-2007, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
No shit? :rolleyes:

Yeah, I've read those stories too, Rush.

NOT ONE gives a number of how many times it was used.

So I was right. You're talking out of your ass [again]

:gulp:

Really now? You didn't look hard enough. Google-Fu not good enough?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html

Warham

11-09-2007, 05:46 PM

Drinking again tonight?

Warham

11-09-2007, 05:48 PM

Q. “If by using torture on a terrorist, you could save the lives of you wife and children, would you do it?”

A. Lounge would say 'no'.

LoungeMachine

11-09-2007, 05:51 PM

:rolleyes:

It must be true then.....

:rolleyes:

LoungeMachine

11-09-2007, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by WAR
Q. “If by using torture on a terrorist, you could save the lives of you wife and children, would you do it?”

A. Lounge would say 'no'.

:rolleyes:

You channeling Sean Hanity again?

This is your typical strawman argument.

First of all, most experts agree [including John Mccain] that torture doesnt work, it gets you bad intel.

And second, your hypocthetical doesnt say that I'm guaranteed to get the truth.

But regardless, IF I was guaranteed to get the truth, then my answer is yes. But there are no guarantees, are there?

Here's one for you, let's see if you have the balls to answer honestly.

Since you are so hot to go to war with iran, and Iran would be an actual country with a military we'd be fighting, let me ask you this, Mr. troop Supporter.

If an American Soldier was captured, should Iran be allowed to water board him or her?

:confused:

Satan

11-09-2007, 08:28 PM

Remember all the color coded "terralerts" that turned out to be nothing?

Where did the BCE get that info?

Chances are it came from one of two sources:

1) They made it up entirely.

2) They tortured some poor bastard who made it up entirely and told them what they wanted to hear, in order to stop the torture.

Here in Hell, we torment people for the sake of torment. We don't expect to get any "intelligence" out of it.

Nickdfresh

11-09-2007, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by WAR
The Japanese were using it on uniformed enemy combatants.

Oh look! Semantics! So it's okay to use it on civilians then?

Even if I were to say that it's torture, how are Al Qaeda operatives protected by the Geneva Convention? What country do they represent?

Afghanistan.

And if they don't represent a country, then why are we at "war" with them?

Blackflag

11-09-2007, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine

This is your typical strawman argument.

First of all, most experts agree [including John Mccain] that torture doesnt work, it gets you bad intel.

And second, your hypocthetical doesnt say that I'm guaranteed to get the truth.

You missed the part that makes the hypothetical so asinine.

It's phrased as "would you torture a 'terrorist'" Obviously, if he were wearing an "I'm a terrorist" t-shirt, we might feel differently about it.

But when you pull some guy off the street you don't know he's a terrorist. And you're going to give that discretion to some random govt bureaucrat? Fucking ridiculous.

stringfelowhawk

11-10-2007, 06:08 AM

To answer your question, No! Ann "The Man" Coulter donated his post surgery because thats the only way they'll ever have a set.

Fucking scumbags that ALL politicians are!

I wish some off the street average Joe who's never held an public office, donated to either party, and has absolutely no fucking political experience at all would run for president because then we'd have the slightest bit of a chance that they would be fairly honest. It has become painfully obvious there isn't a single politician in office who wasn't corrupt prior to being elected or confirmed. Politicians by nature are selfish criminals feigning interest in serving the people who elect them or allow them to steal elections. At this point I'd vote for Bugs Bunny just for a damn change of pace to break the current scandal ridden jackass' that crowned a king intead of electing a president. I wouldn't even care if it was some homeless dude. It could only be an improvement over the Nasty Canasta wannabe currently conducting the home invasion scam at 1600 Pen Ave.

If this shit keeps happening I may even run myself. Use "Vote for me, I'm not a politician!" as my campaign slogan.