Y'all are a bunch of wankers!

philo has a point thogh

the Democrats should be passing bills that Bush will veto as fast as they can write them.

they should be passing payrises for the troops, they should be uping the troop pension, they should be providing increased numbers of hospitals for the troops and for the 9/11 first responders.  they should be allowing for increased medicare and passing new taxes.

they should be passing bill after bill to bring the troops home, they should be passing bills to checkout on Iraq expenditure, they should be passing bills to do everything they can think of to annoy the fuck out of bush.

and they should damn well make sure bush has too veto every one personally.

he wants to be an asshole?  lets give him the chance.

philo is right. the sole aim of the democrats at this point should be to give bush rsi.

let the fucker prove what a hypocritical asshole he is.
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 18th, 2007 9:28pm
I completely and totally agree with 100% of what you are saying.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 18th, 2007 9:29pm
holy shit.

Im hard.
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 18th, 2007 9:30pm
"payrises for the troops"

Bush whitehouse demanded 3% payraise for active mil. House and senate approved 3.5%.

This IS indeed happening.
Permalink Send private email arg! 
July 18th, 2007 9:32pm
3.5% over 6 years?  fuck that.  they should pass additional laws to tie their payrises to yearly inflation.

also laws to provide for troop bonus each year of active duty.  also laws to allow troops to choose t oreturn from overseas deployment after...say...2 tours of active duty..

also laws to purchase the families of the troops a damn washing machine after 6 months, a big screen tv after a year and a $30000 car after 2 years.

these laws should each be individual, simple ones as well.  let there be absolutely no doubt what bush is vetoing.

it should happen over, and over, and over again.
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 18th, 2007 9:35pm
My god, are the planets in perfect alignment or something?  All this agreeing.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
July 18th, 2007 9:42pm
Clinton vetoed hundreds of bills. Did anyone care?
Permalink Send private email bon vivant 
July 18th, 2007 10:30pm
if by 'hundreds' you actually mean '38 ish' then might I suggest that your talent for hyperbole is somewhat more developed than your talent for rational thought?

Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 18th, 2007 10:36pm
OK, I added a nought. So sue me. How many bills has Bush vetoed again?
Permalink Send private email bon vivant 
July 18th, 2007 10:37pm
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 18th, 2007 10:38pm
If by hundreds you mean "one".
Permalink Aaron 
July 18th, 2007 10:44pm
Now, let's ask "How many has he used executive privilege to ignore?"
Permalink Aaron 
July 18th, 2007 10:45pm
Bush didn't HAVE to veto any bills until last January.  Before that he had a rubber-stamp lap-dog Congress which would only propose bills Bush approved of.  And changed the rules such that any bills the Democrats might have wanted to propose got buried in committee.

And even THEN, all Bush had to do was add a "signing statement" that would say he disagreed with some small piece of the bill he WAS signing, for an effective line-item veto that wouldn't count as a veto.

Geez people, it's called "Balance Of Power", and you only have a "Balance" when Congress is willing to actually "Balance".
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 18th, 2007 10:55pm
>> philo is right. the sole aim of the democrats at this point should be to give bush rsi.

And display complete impotence in the process.

With restraint they can build support to make real change happen.  Republicans are starting to defect.
Permalink Michael B 
July 19th, 2007 12:04am
What is the deal with those signing statements? The constitution simply does not give the executive branch that sort of ability. Is this an offshoot of the line-item thing? Do we have line-item veto? If we do, are line-item vetos constitutional? Has it been heard at the Supreme Court?

I just don't get this whole thing. It's like if the mayor came over and said he has the legal right to copulate with my livestock.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 19th, 2007 1:26am
"U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan decided on February 12, 1998, that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998, by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York."

OK, so line-item was around for a couple years during Clinton and now it is dead.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 19th, 2007 1:28am


This says signing statements are a sort of commentary or proclamation made by an executive when signing a bill into law. The statements have always been ceremonial, they are not part of any sort of legal authority or such, they just say things like "I am so happy to approve this law that will XYZ".

But Bush has been adding on stuff as if he has some sort of line-item veto right, but not called line-item veto as part of this, enabling him to modify bills.

Nothing in the constitution or in any law passed by congress authorizes or acknowledges any of this, so legally it's completely void.

So the question is WHY THE FUCK are they paying attention to these things as if they have some sort of force of law?
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 19th, 2007 1:34am
I operate under the assumption that Congress is beholden to nearly the same people as Bush and Cheney.  Only then do their actions make sense.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
July 19th, 2007 6:19am
Yes, they're all beholden to We The People of the United States.

The problem is, some of We The People have their heads up their asses, and are willing to believe what demagogues tell them about Fear, and Terrorism, and Gays, and Abortion, and even Morality, and Taxes, and even (God help us) Liberals.

And the Congress reflects that reality.  So, we have a slim majority of sane people (ha! Gotcha!  You thought I meant all Democrats are sane, right?  Not so!) in the Congress after the 2006 elections.  And the guys in the White House are STILL the same demagogues we (God help us, again) RE-ELECTED in 2004.

Fortunately, much of the demagoguery is coming home to roost.  So there AREN'T WMD in Iraq, it WASN'T a cake-walk, we HAVE lost more than 3,000 soldiers, we HAVEN'T caught Osama Bin Laden AFTER ALL THIS TIME, it turns out that Deficit Spending and Lower Taxes DO NOT "Raise all boats", and if Congress is having to borrow from the fucking Chinese to balance the budget then the Taxes are NOT "Your Money".

The only open question is, how much "getting screwed" and "losing our sons and daughters" will We The People accept before we stop believing demagogues?  And instead vote in people who really do want to make a better America for everybody, not just for people making $200,000 a year or more?

2006 was extremely close.  One or two counties changing votes by a few thousand either way would have tipped the balance.  Is the country REALLY as "sweet and innocent" now as it was in 2004?  Will it be as "sweet and innocent" in November 2008?  Only time will tell.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 19th, 2007 2:08pm
The biggest problem with allowing people to lie, cheat, and steal political power is that you end up with liars, cheats, and thieves running the show.
Permalink Send private email JoC 
July 19th, 2007 3:12pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: July, 2007 Other topics: July, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics