Biden had some interesting comments a few days ago.
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QB2tcKt-Pgk"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QB2tcKt-Pgk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Well, if Chimpy isn't funding the war, I guess that means it's over, right?
Is the (non-existent) mission over NOW, asshole???
Hey, 4 years late is better than never, I guess
Eat Us And Smile
Cenk For America 2024!!
Justice Democrats
"If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992
Well, witholding fundage from our troops is minor compared to what he is already doing.
TRYING TO MURDER THEM BY KEEPING THEM OVER THERE TO FIGHT A USELESS 'WAR' THAT CANNOT BE 'WON'.
themonkey keeps yammering "Failure is not an option".
Note to themonkey: YOU FUCKING COCKSUCKER!!! IT HAS BEEN A FAILURE SINCE BEFORE IT BEGAN!!!
Vietnam all over again.
More goddamned checkers games while using our American soldiers as expendable playing pieces on the World Game Board.
Will somebody please get themonkey out of office and into prison????
I thought he used the veto due to the withdrawal timeframe that was placed into the funding bill. Oh well, if it truly is the will of the people, congress shouldn't have a problem getting a measly 2/3 to override it.Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Bush veto denies funding for the troops!
“Great losses often bring only a numb shock. To truly plunge a victim into misery, you must overwhelm him with many small sufferings.”
It's primarily about the timeline, but wasn't there all kinds of pork the Dems attached to it as well?
Both parties attach pork to bills. Although I haven't heard much about this particular bill other than the funding and withdrawal timeline. The whole idea is to get the President to veto it due to the withdrawal timeline, which they knew he would do, then accuse him of not funding the troops. Democrats knew full well that the President would veto it, he said so several times. The Democrats are preventing the funding of the troops by adding in something they knew would get the veto. Make two seperate bills, one for funding and one for the withdrawal timeline. Since basically the entire country is behind them (according to them), it shouldn't be a problem getting it passed...even with a Presidential veto. 2/3 is only 66%. That's only a D grade...barely passing, below average (fail in many cases). Surely they can get that.Originally posted by Big Train
It's primarily about the timeline, but wasn't there all kinds of pork the Dems attached to it as well?
No. The Democrats are listening to The People Of The United States Of America.
themonkey does not care about anyone other than himself and his power-mad, genocidal cronies.
If it were so easy to get passed, it wouldn't be as pork laden as it is.
Bribery is unacceptable in private life, so why should be allowed in public life?
I've long maintained that bills should be voted on based on a straight up procedure. 1 bill, 1 vote, no add-ons.
It will never happen, it's too lucrative, but I'm sure it's not what the founding fathers intended.
Exactly...Bush sucks but the dems are no better.Originally posted by sadaist
The whole idea is to get the President to veto it due to the withdrawal timeline, which they knew he would do, then accuse him of not funding the troops. Democrats knew full well that the President would veto it, he said so several times. The Democrats are preventing the funding of the troops by adding in something they knew would get the veto.
You know, I'm actually greatful most of you get to rant on these boards.
It's a lot healthier than holding it in while collecting issues of Merc magazine and pasting your basement walls of Bush W. with a bullseye on him.
Everyone should be pissed off as HELL over the fact that they've all turned the lives of the troops into a political war.
Cause that's all they're doing. They're "staying the course" but putting a on an entertaining show.
"If our country is worth dying for in time of war let us resolve that it is truly worth living for in time of peace." - Hamilton Fish
Can I kiss you?Originally posted by sadaist
Both parties attach pork to bills. Although I haven't heard much about this particular bill other than the funding and withdrawal timeline. The whole idea is to get the President to veto it due to the withdrawal timeline, which they knew he would do, then accuse him of not funding the troops. Democrats knew full well that the President would veto it, he said so several times. The Democrats are preventing the funding of the troops by adding in something they knew would get the veto. Make two seperate bills, one for funding and one for the withdrawal timeline. Since basically the entire country is behind them (according to them), it shouldn't be a problem getting it passed...even with a Presidential veto. 2/3 is only 66%. That's only a D grade...barely passing, below average (fail in many cases). Surely they can get that.
I can't imagine anyone voting for a Repub pres. or a business owning rich one ever again.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Yeah, I mean we all know how much George Dumb'ya Bush and the previous Republican held Congress hate pork!Originally posted by Big Train
If it were so easy to get passed, it wouldn't be as pork laden as it is.
Bribery is unacceptable in private life, so why should be allowed in public life?
I've long maintained that bills should be voted on based on a straight up procedure. 1 bill, 1 vote, no add-ons.
It will never happen, it's too lucrative, but I'm sure it's not what the founding fathers intended.
How are the dems turning the "lives" of the troops into a political war?
If anything the dems are the only ones who want to SAVE THE LIVES of the troops and save them from being permanantly injured by getting them out of being caught in the middle of a civil war.
THe Repukes and Bush have endangered the lives of the troops, and could give a shit about them.
That pretty much takes everybody out of the race.Originally posted by Steve Savicki
I can't imagine anyone voting for a Repub pres. or a business owning rich one ever again.
I think Zack says it best in this rant:
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cXCVw_8Y1Mk"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cXCVw_8Y1Mk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Yes, how dare politicians engage in politics.Originally posted by Ellyllions
Everyone should be pissed off as HELL over the fact that they've all turned the lives of the troops into a political war.
Why go there? The obvious "wait a min, but your side"...I have no interest in those pissing contests anymore.Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yeah, I mean we all know how much George Dumb'ya Bush and the previous Republican held Congress hate pork!
Just making a general observation about how things SHOULD be. Talk about what should be in the Constitution, it should be some form of a "single bill, single vote" provision.
I'd vote for Fred Thompson, but I don't think he:Originally posted by Steve Savicki
I can't imagine anyone voting for a Repub pres. or a business owning rich one ever again.
1. owns a major business
2. Is running...yet.
The rest of the field, Dem and Republicans seem weak to me.
I'd REALLY like to see some strong independents, so I can give them my vote again.
Any predictions on Independent candidates, since nobody pays attention to that? I'd love to see a real dark horse.
Nice...Originally posted by FORD
Well, if Chimpy isn't funding the war, I guess that means it's over,
Is the (non-existent) mission over NOW, asshole???
Hey, 4 years late is better than never, I guess
But hard to swallow if you're over there wondering what George W. McGiver is going to do next.
I like Hagel.Originally posted by DLR'sCock
THe Repukes and Bush have endangered the lives of the troops, and could give a shit about them.
I don't lump him in with the average GOP idiots. He may actually think for himself rather than follow the same old tired party line.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote