Same Old Message of Change and Hope

[Cypress]

Well, last I checked, Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House, and Harry Reid was Senate Majority Leader. Is this not the case? I know it has been the past two years, and before that, it was Democrat after what'shisname "switched" to an independent and gave the Dems the majority. That was in 2005, so it's been 3 years, and by the end of this election cycle, 4 years.

As for 1/3, unless you've found something to support the idea that one can be evenly divided by three without a remainder, then my original statement still stands true. In the universe we live in, with the laws of physics we are bound to, one divided by three produces a remainder. If you want to claim otherwise, you need to show evidence, not just form a group pile and keep repeating the same idiocy. Frankly, I think it shows what lack of imagination you have, that after all this time, that is the only thing you can think to say to me.

Far be it from me to interrupt your subversion and distortions, you have proven in this very thread, you really have nothing to stand on. Instead of talking about the subject or trying to have a civilized debate, you seek to grab onto some bullshit from the past and hurl your stupid shit at me. You know, it is getting old, not just with me, but with America in general. We are growing weary of your stalling, obfuscation, and distortion of the truth. We are tired of hearing the same old Bush-Bashing Bullshit and 30-year-old rhetoric about your liberal socialist utopian dreams. The American people deserve some answers, are you going to provide them, or just continue to hurl insult after insult at people who disagree with you?

First Dixie, are you going to admit you were wrong that the Democrats have been in control for "four years". That's the second time in 72 hours you made that assertion, so I don't think it was a typo.

Second, you may be tired of bush bashing. I imagine the 28% of dead enders who still support him are tired of it. There's no evidence that the nation at large is tired of BUsh bashing. He's the most unpopular and hated president in my lifetime.

Third, democrats gave bush a bill with a timeline to withdraw from Iraq. He vetoed it. This is a republican war now. If democrats are smart, they will make you campaign on your war. As for cutting off funding, Bush will leave americans to die in iraq whether there is war funding or not. He will leave them there to die, and raid other public funds to maintain an occupation there. The only way to make him leave Iraq is through force of law. A bill that REQUIRES a withdrawl.

 

[cawacko]

The math showing how the Democrats, with their “majority” could, for instance, overrule Bush’s vetoing of their timelines to get out of Iraq? Can you show that?

Get a few Republicans to vote with them.

 

[Bonestorm]

They can't.

Fixed.

 

[Onceler]

Get a few Republicans to vote with them.

What do you recommend? Flowers...chocolates...invites to dinner?

How does one woo a Republican who is opposed to withdrawal?

 

[cawacko]

Fixed.

Now I wasn't a math major Sir but I did graduate from college and if you need a higher number you need people to join you.

 

[Cancel7]

Get a few Republicans to vote with them.

Well Republicans refused to do so, and at any rate, the claim is “why haven’t the democrats done anything about the war since they became the majority”. So you would need to show how “the democrats” not how ‘the democrats and the republicans” could change the course of, or stop, the war. We all know how the democrats and the republicans could do it, show us how the democrats, and don’t forget to count out Joe I’m with stupid Lieberman, could do it.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What do you recommend? Flowers...chocolates...invites to dinner?

How does one woo a Republican who is opposed to withdrawal?

Perhaps start with Republicans that are in favor of withdrawal such as Hagel and Paul?

Perhaps you make them vote on it over and over and over again, making Bush continually veto it. Keep the issue at the front of the line. Attach it to everything the Reps want to pass. But yeah, I keep forgetting. The Dems really don't have any power at all being in the leadership position. They are impotent because of the all mighty "he keeps tricking us" Bush.

The only way a party can really have "control" or "power" in Congress is to have a super majority. Which we see all so often throughout our history.

Bottom line... it is just too tough on you to admit that your so called "leaders" are an impotent bunch.

 

[Damocles]

Let's not start the whole math argument again. Talk about a waste of time!

 

[Onceler]

Let's not start the whole math argument again. Talk about a waste of time!

Oh, it's fun, though. I love watching Dixie spin; the Dems have controlled Congress for 4 years, because of Jim Jeffords switching parties, and that giving them 3 years, which will really be 4 if you extend it to the end of this year, even though they didn't have the majority until January of 2007.

It's like watching someone ride a unicycle through flaming hoops while trying to juggle. It's a treat.

 

[Bonestorm]

Perhaps start with Republicans that are in favor of withdrawal such as Hagel and Paul?

Perhaps you make them vote on it over and over and over again, making Bush continually veto it. Keep the issue at the front of the line. Attach it to everything the Reps want to pass. But yeah, I keep forgetting. The Dems really don't have any power at all being in the leadership position. They are impotent because of the all mighty "he keeps tricking us" Bush.

The only way a party can really have "control" or "power" in Congress is to have a super majority. Which we see all so often throughout our history.

Bottom line... it is just too tough on you to admit that your so called "leaders" are an impotent bunch.

I will freely admit that the Democratic congressional majority is in fact impotent on Iraq.

It's a simple fact of the structure of our government that a party lacking the votes necessary to override a presidential veto can't magically create a veto-proof majority.

I think it's hilarious that you of all people are critical of the Democrats on this issue. God forbid you actually blame the party that is responsible, the Republicans. Following Reagan's 11th Commandment I see.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I will freely admit that the Democratic congressional majority is in fact impotent on Iraq.

It's a simple fact of the structure of our government that a party lacking the votes necessary to override a presidential veto can't magically create a veto-proof majority.

I think it's hilarious that you of all people are critical of the Democrats on this issue. God forbid you actually blame the party that is responsible, the Republicans. Following Reagan's 11th Commandment I see.

Bullshit. They have been blamed as well for their complete ineptitude. For their reckless spending. etc...

The point I was trying to make is that too many Dems are giving THEIR party a pass for the lack of a veto proof majority. Acting like THAT means they can't do anything. When is the last time either party had a veto proof majority when their opponent was in the WH?

Look back to when good old Tipper was in control in the House. He and Reagan butted heads consistently. It was give an take.

Then look at Pelosi and Reid... they continually fold to the weakest President in the past 50 years (if not ever). Then blame their weakness on "he keeps vetoing it, so we are not going to try any more.".

Again, this is NOT to take away blame on the Reps for their ineptitude from 2001-2006.

 

[Bonestorm]

Bullshit. They have been blamed as well for their complete ineptitude. For their reckless spending. etc...

The point I was trying to make is that too many Dems are giving THEIR party a pass for the lack of a veto proof majority. Acting like THAT means they can't do anything. When is the last time either party had a veto proof majority when their opponent was in the WH?

Look back to when good old Tipper was in control in the House. He and Reagan butted heads consistently. It was give an take.

Then look at Pelosi and Reid... they continually fold to the weakest President in the past 50 years (if not ever). Then blame their weakness on "he keeps vetoing it, so we are not going to try any more.".

Again, this is NOT to take away blame on the Reps for their ineptitude from 2001-2006.

Tipper and Reagan were two individuals that were committed to the give and take. That can't be said about this president and this congress. President Bush refuses to give anything. It's all or nothing. You can't make that work ever. When that happens you get Gingrich-Clinton and government shutdown until an election sorts it out.

At a time of war and with troops in the field, government shutdown is not an option. Folding on whether to cut off all funds while troops are in the field is not being weak. It's accepting reality and being responsible. The alternative is reckless and borderline criminal.

 

[Damocles]

Tipper and Reagan were two individuals that were committed to the give and take. That can't be said about this president and this congress. President Bush refuses to give anything. It's all or nothing. You can't make that work ever. When that happens you get Gingrich-Clinton and government shutdown until an election sorts it out.

At a time of war and with troops in the field, government shutdown is not an option. Folding on whether to cut off all funds while troops are in the field is not being weak. It's accepting reality and being responsible. The alternative is reckless and borderline criminal.

I agree that most of Bush's ineffectiveness as a "leader" comes from his stubbornness.

 

[Cypress]

Get a few Republicans to vote with them.

That's been tried. It doesn't work, for more than a handful of republicans.

The problem isn't politicians. It's americans. Republican congress persons will only vote against the war, when their constituency demands it. Since the republican base still likes this war, they aren't demanding that their congress persons vote to get out.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well Republicans refused to do so, and at any rate, the claim is “why haven’t the democrats done anything about the war since they became the majority”. So you would need to show how “the democrats” not how ‘the democrats and the republicans” could change the course of, or stop, the war. We all know how the democrats and the republicans could do it, show us how the democrats, and don’t forget to count out Joe I’m with stupid Lieberman, could do it.

You just keep yapping like a little puppy, so I guess I should respond so you know you are loved. To get you back on the right track, let's have a look at how this twisted question got started:

As for "never come to fruition," Democrats have been responsible for as much progressive change in this country on issues ranging from protecting the environment to education to energy to worker's rights as you can fit in that tiny little head of yours. What have Bush & the GOP accomplished over the past 7 years by comparison?

Wow, it started out being a question of what Bush has done, it ends up being a question of how can Democrats do anything. Amazing, almost a complete 180! You guys can argue that Bush has not done anything, but neither have the Democrats, in spite of having control of Congress. Now, I said 8 years, and it has not been 8 years, although it seems like 16. BUT, since the election of 2000, Democrats decided that ANY legislation needs a super-majority vote to pass. They began to behave like 4-year-olds in need of a nap... much like you act on a regular basis here... refusing to cooperate, refusing to budge... didn't matter what was right or fair.... wouldn't allow an up or down vote on the president's judges... kept the Bush administration from pushing forward ANY administration policy... continued to rant and rave about the war, the energy policy, the past election, katrina, what-the-fuck ever you could think of except actually voting for Bush policies. So the question is, how was Bush supposed to accomplish anything in this environment? You say that Bush was unable to garner bipartisan support, but he was dealing with a bunch of partisan hacks who had no intention of being bipartisan. What magic feather could he have tickled Nancy Pelosi's ass with, to get democrats to vote with him on anything?

This has been an interesting discussion, and it should bring home the fact that, despite the grandiose Obama speeches, there is really nothing the next president is going to be able to do without a super-majority in Congress. All this Hope and Change is for naught, because there will be very little hope of passing legislation for change in the current political environment. It also reveals why 90% of the country doesn't approve of the job Congress is doing. It has been reduced to finger-pointing by both parties, and denial of responsibility. Maybe that will change with 3 Democrats running for president?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That's been tried. It doesn't work, for more than a handful of republicans.

The problem isn't politicians. It's americans. Republican congress persons will only vote against the war, when their constituency demands it. Since the republican base still likes this war, they aren't demanding that their congress persons vote to get out.

You are actually, very amazingly, I might add, getting close to the TRUTH! *GASP*

The problem is, liberating Iraq was the right thing to do. It's not Vietnam, nothing like it. It's not even technically a real war, we have no opposing army or nation, just a hodgepodge of terrorist misfits from Iran, who don't want to see democracy in Iraq. Now, some Americans don't like the war, some think there were other things we could have done, some think we shouldn't have taken out Saddam, some think there were more important things we should have done, but a vast and overwhelming majority of Americans, whether they agree with the war in Iraq or not, realize and understand, it was the right thing to do.

No on "likes" this war, or any war! I hate that our boys are dying over there, I hate that we had to spill one drop of blood to eradicate the scum-sucking terrorists, but it was the right thing to do, and it needed to be done. I hate that it is taking so long, I wish we could have done it without any loss of life and in a matter of a few days, but it's still the right thing to do. You have failed at convincing Americans this is just like Vietnam, most of them are well aware of the differences. Yes, Anti-War America, the rest of us don't agree with you about Iraq, and we never will, and that is a problem for you.

 

[Onceler]

Dixie, you hopeless, delusional rube. Over half of Americans think the war was a mistake, and 2/3 are opposed to it now (to which Cheney famously replied, "So?").

You don't speak for America, and never have. It's rarely been more clear, however.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, you hopeless, delusional rube. Over half of Americans think the war was a mistake, and 2/3 are opposed to it now (to which Cheney famously replied, "So?").

You don't speak for America, and never have. It's rarely been more clear, however.

No, I don't speak for America, the elected representatives do. As was pointed out, they have been unable to pass anti-war legislation because the majority of their constituents "still like this war."

You are the victim of an illusion, perpetrated by your own liberal friends in the media. These supposed "polls" which show the drastic numbers you believe are true and support your position, are not an accurate representation at all. Much of it has to do with how the poll question is framed. Are you happy with the war in Iraq? Yes or No? WOW, 66% said they weren't happy with the war in Iraq, so that must mean 66% support the anti-war left! This is the propaganda you've willingly swallowed, because you really want to believe that most of America is supportive of your views. The TRUTH lies in the results of any Congressional effort to stop or end the war. If anywhere NEAR 2/3 of America opposed the war, do you think ANY politician would still support it? Much less, an overwhelming majority of politicians, who have repeatedly voted to continue the funding, thus continuing the war. I think it is clear to all except the kool-aid drenched, that the vast majority of America understands we can't withdraw from Iraq. Like it or not, agree with it or not, we simply can't withdraw from it. Why? Because, it was the right thing to do!

 

[Onceler]

Timeline legislation was passed by a majority of reps in the Senate & House.

It was vetoed by Bush, who doesn't have to worry about re-election.

Stick that in your delusional pipe & smoke it. I hope you choke on it, frankly.

 

[Annie]

Timeline legislation was passed by a majority of reps in the Senate & House.

It was vetoed by Bush, who doesn't have to worry about re-election.

Stick that in your delusional pipe & smoke it. I hope you choke on it, frankly.

You are running away from the truth of what Dixie posted. The Democrats and many Republicans too have slipped in pork, hoping that the veto will not hold. If it does, they are going to go to the wall for this and pay the price at the election, that is coming fast and furious, without a Democratic nominee in waiting. Indeed, with a real floor fight facing them.