Liars, Theives...Democrats.

[ODShowtime]

Here's pretty much the same information, but not spun through a neocon bitchboy perspective. It's also just about the Senate.

Democrats Double Their Pleasure in Early Senate Fundraising

By Greg GirouxTue Apr 24, 5:30 PM ET

Democrats going into the 2006 elections appeared to face very long odds in their efforts to net the six-seat gain they needed to take control of the Senate. Yet New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer took his reputation as a master fundraiser to the chairmanship of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) — which then stunned the Washington political community by easily outraising its partisan counterpart, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC).

With the Democrats now in control and the Republicans facing the unenviable task of defending 21 seats in the 2008 elections to the Democrats’ 12, Schumer is well positioned to take the DSCC to new heights in his second election cycle as chairman.

Still, the campaign finance reports for March, which closed out the year’s first quarter, were eye-opening: The $13.7 million in receipts reported by the Democratic unit for the first three months was nearly twice the $7 million posted by the NRSC.

In March alone, the DSCC did more than double the NRSC’s returns, with $8.7 million in receipts to $3.6 million for the Republican committee. The gap in cash reserves as of March 31 was even more glaring, with the DSCC holding $9.5 million cash on hand to $3.5 million for the NRSC.

A handful of senators reported donating to the Senate party committees through their own campaign committees or through their “leadership PACs,” which are political action committees that senators organize as a means of contributing to political allies.

Those leadership PACs can donate just $15,000 per year to a national party committee, such as the DSCC or the NRSC. And senators can give unlimited amounts to national party committees from their own Senate campaign committees.

Among the larger contributions that the DSCC received last month were those from the campaign committees of Delaware Sen. Thomas R. Carper ($125,000), North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad (news, bio, voting record) ($100,000) and New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman (news, bio, voting record) ($50,000), all of whom were overwhelmingly re-elected last November.

The NRSC did receive a big chunk of its own in the form of $425,000 in donations last month from the McConnell Majority Committee. This is a joint fundraising effort that divides its proceeds between the NRSC and the campaign committee of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record) of Kentucky, who is up for re-election next year.

The NRSC last month paid off the remaining $500,000 of an outstanding loan and also paid off some of its debts to the law firm Foley and Lardner, to which the NRSC still owes $262,000. The DSCC has $6 million in debt from a loan it incurred last October, during the home stretch of the national Senate campaign.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20070424/...P0vqiV6N75R9AF

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by scamper
Model VH79

With the original anal adapter and hecto sperm absorption?

[DrMaddVibe]

Pretty funny how they duped everyone that they were going to be the party of reform.

The first 100 days were a sham.

Their "Do as I say not as I do" attitude belies the fact that they want to stay in charge.

[Ellyllions]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Wow, if only things were really that simple.

Imagine trying to get 535 people to agree on something.

Congress never declared war.

...hmmm

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

Senate approves Iraq war resolution
Administration applauds vote
Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)



Sen. Blanche L. Lincoln, D-Arkansas, reads aloud the results of the Senate vote on the resolution.

FACT BOX
• "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 Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

• The resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of any military action against Iraq and submit, at least every 60 days, a report to Congress on the military campaign.

• The resolution does not tie any U.S. action to a U.N. resolution.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."

While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.

The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.

Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.

The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.

The Bush administration and its supporters in Congress say Saddam has kept a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions and has continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bush also has argued that Iraq could give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists.

Iraq has denied having weapons of mass destruction and has offered to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return for the first time since 1998. Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

"If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said.

The White House immediately rejected the offer, saying the matter is up to the United Nations, not Iraq.

Resolution sharply divides Democrats
The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.

Ahead of the vote, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle announced Thursday morning he would support Bush on Iraq, saying it is important for the country "to speak with one voice at this critical moment."

Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored." However, he urged Bush to move "in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse."

Daschle had expressed reservations about a possible U.S. attack on Iraq, and he was not part of an agreement between the White House and other congressional leaders framing the resolution last week.

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, attempted Thursday to mount a filibuster against the resolution but was cut off on a 75 to 25 vote.

Byrd had argued the resolution amounted to a "blank check" for the White House.


Sen. Bob Graham of Florida was one of 21 Senate Democrats voting against the resolution.



"This is the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again," Byrd said. "Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution."

But Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said the United States needs to move before Saddam can develop a more advanced arsenal.

"Giving peace a chance only gives Saddam Hussein more time to prepare for war on his terms, at a time of his choosing, in pursuit of ambitions that will only grow as his power to achieve them grows," McCain said.

In the House, six Republicans -- Ron Paul of Texas; Connie Morella of Maryland; Jim Leach of Iowa; Amo Houghton of New York; John Hostettler of Indiana; and John Duncan of Tennessee -- joined 126 Democrats in voting against the resolution.

Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations.

"I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent," said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure.

But Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said the 133 votes against the measure were "a very strong message" to the administration.

"All across this land Americans are insisting on a peaceful resolution of matters in Iraq," he said. "All across this land, Americans are looking towards the United States to be a nation among nations, working through the United Nations to help resolve this crisis."

Now, before we turn this into yet ANOTHER thread about who lied/who wrongly went into Iraq, let's keep a perspective about it....shall we?

So the Congress can be mistaken, can make a wrong decision? Well, the Congress is supposed to be the checks and balances on the President so if we look at the Senate for what it's SUPPOSED to be...it would appear as though the Congress is the one who fucked up by passing the legislation to go into Iraq.

Now, what were you saying about Congress not declaring war?

My point is, and I've said it before packing all the blame at the top of the totem pole everytime a conversation about Iraq begins, doesn't deal with the weak wood in the middle of the totem pole. You leave them blameless.

Congress has got NOTHING done since November.

NOTHING! I'm sorry you don't like it, but it's true. And no matter how many times we try to revert back to the fiasco that has become Iraq, the fact that Congress isn't doing anything about it remains the same.

The Democrats in Congress won't even show up for the required briefings by Petraeus! They DEMANDED the briefings take place, even put it in their initial legislation and yet they play a political game with it and refuse to show up to find out what Petraeus is coming to report. Who does that hurt? THE SOLDIERS IN IRAQ RIGHT NOW. Then they push a bill up to the President and he plays his political part in the game and vetos it. They don't even TRY to outsmart him. Just push paper back and forth between each other getting NOTHING accomplished.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
...hmmm

So the Congress can be mistaken, can make a wrong decision? Well, the Congress is supposed to be the checks and balances on the President so if we look at the Senate for what it's SUPPOSED to be...it would appear as though the Congress is the one who fucked up by passing the legislation to go into Iraq.

Now, what were you saying about Congress not declaring war?

My point is

Elly, if you want to blame Congress now for the invasion of Iraq, let's not forget that they were fed a big pile of bullshit from our intelligence agencies that was manipulated by the White House and their agents.

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44025&highlight=douglas+feith

We could go on and on with the evidence of this key fact, but why go farther than our own forum?

And yes, it appears nothing "illegal" happened. That's not the point.

[DEMON CUNT]

Elly, you want to spread the blame so thin that no one is held accountable for anything. Unless of course you choose to blame the party that has largely been out of power for the last several years.

When was the last time you contacted your representative? Have you offered them any of this wisdom? Or have you done nothing as well?

Do you honestly believe that the new congress could have walked in and fixed the damage of the past six years in a matter of days?

This is the same naive mentality that caused you to vote for Bush in 2000 and 2004.

Again I say congress never declared "war". Authorization to use military force is not a declaration of war. These are two very different things.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
...hmmm



Now, before we turn this into yet ANOTHER thread about who lied/who wrongly went into Iraq, let's keep a perspective about it....shall we?

So the Congress can be mistaken, can make a wrong decision? Well, the Congress is supposed to be the checks and balances on the President so if we look at the Senate for what it's SUPPOSED to be...it would appear as though the Congress is the one who fucked up by passing the legislation to go into Iraq.

Now, what were you saying about Congress not declaring war?

What are you saying about the Congress declaring war? Do you see one declared? It was an authorization to use force. Something that should be illegal I agree, but there it is...

And BTW, the congress was controlled by Republicans with the Democrats largely marginalized. So again, what's your point? That it's their fault they let the idiot you voted for have too much power?

My point is, and I've said it before packing all the blame at the top of the totem pole everytime a conversation about Iraq begins, doesn't deal with the weak wood in the middle of the totem pole. You leave them blameless.

Congress has got NOTHING done since November.

NOTHING! I'm sorry you don't like it, but it's true. And no matter how many times we try to revert back to the fiasco that has become Iraq, the fact that Congress isn't doing anything about it remains the same.

The Democrats in Congress won't even show up for the required briefings by Petraeus! They DEMANDED the briefings take place, even put it in their initial legislation and yet they play a political game with it and refuse to show up to find out what Petraeus is coming to report. Who does that hurt? THE SOLDIERS IN IRAQ RIGHT NOW.

How does that "hurt them?"

You have Gen. Petraeus essentially contradicting the politicized rhetoric of his own 'leadership.' The pResident continually sees the "surge" as a means to some idiotic notion of victory that has no real tangible definition whereas Petraeus has stated that the war cannot be "won" through military means, and the surge is just a temporary tactic to quell violence until a negotiated settlement can be reached.

However does this discussion hurt them?

And why is all this shit bubbling up in this thread when we have dozens to choose from on Iraq?

Then they push a bill up to the President and he plays his political part in the game and vetos it. They don't even TRY to outsmart him. Just push paper back and forth between each other getting NOTHING accomplished.

Yeah, well the difference is that Congress is representing the actual will of the people as evidence by the Democratic victory whereas the Bush admin is just representing an ever decreasing partisan base of dipshits avoiding reality with simpleton's rhetoric...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Pretty funny how they duped everyone that they were going to be the party of reform.

The first 100 days were a sham.

Their "Do as I say not as I do" attitude belies the fact that they want to stay in charge.

What? You mean their receiving a lot of money? Really?

Give me a call when the numbers of corruption cases even approach those of the past Republican congress...

[Ellyllions]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Elly, you want to spread the blame so thin that no one is held accountable for anything. Unless of course you choose to blame the party that has largely been out of power for the last several years.

Spreading the blame thin? By accusing both parties of being as dirty as they accuse each other of being? The whole of DC is playing puppetmaster with the general public. I'm wondering why the Democratic base isn't as upset with their Congress as they were with the majority of Congress was Republican. How come the Democrats get a freebie?

Do you honestly believe that the new congress could have walked in and fixed the damage of the past six years in a matter of days?

See this is the same thing the Republicans have been saying in defense of their actions....

Again I say congress never declared "war". Authorization to use military force is not a declaration of war. These are two very different things. [/B]

A double standard perhaps?

I'm blaming anyone in authority on this. No matter political affiliation. I'm just beginning to see that it's ok if the Dems fuck up...it's an "error", "can't-help-it", or "someone else's fault". But if the Reps fuck up it's "slanderous", "criminal", and "blatant lies".

[DEMON CUNT]

Round and round in a little circle she goes...

You spread the blame thinly over the entire body of government leaving the people who actually made the decision insulated.

You voted for and supported the "decider" and his crew for a long time.

How many times did you vote for Bush? That blood will always be on your hands.

The real problem is not our representation, but us for failing to express our feelings to them.

Do you contact your reps?

[hideyoursheep]

Who here believes pulling out of IRAQ now would lead to them following us here? Anybody out there that naive?

Remember why they "followed us here" in the first place....

[Nitro Express]

Politicians are like whores. They can be bought. Pick one who's special intrest bennefits you and who's corruption hurts you the least.

Republicans and Democrats are both pots calling the kettle black. They are two bald guys fighting for a comb. Both are practacly useless for the average American anymore. They only care about the very rich or the welfare rats. Hell, both care about illegal alliens more than the middle class. Both suck snail balls.

[hideyoursheep]

I don't know anyone who genuinely "cares" for what you called the "welfare rats".

Never been on it, I know who has...

And I can tell you noone gave a shit about them.

It's almost evil how they were stigmatized and treated by doctors, potential employers- the public in general.

It's definitely not something for nothing. Anyone would be fucked up to believe it is.
Hopefully, we'll never know firsthand.