That's not correct. You should be embarassed for the way you responded to my criticism of the Dem action. You should be embarassed for immediately dismissing the effectiveness of legislation that HASN'T EVEN BEEN SIGNED INTO LAW yet. You should be embarassed for trying to portray me as a leftie koolaid drinking Bush basher who immediately brought up Bush on your thread, when I was only responding to YOUR OWN reference to Bush & really stupid attempt to try to compare the damage he has done to the action by Feinstein, who I'm not a big fan of, btw....
Real leadership
- Thread starter Onceler
- Start date
That's not correct. You should be embarassed for the way you responded to my criticism of the Dem action. You should be embarassed for immediately dismissing the effectiveness of legislation that HASN'T EVEN BEEN SIGNED INTO LAW yet. You should be embarassed for trying to portray me as a leftie koolaid drinking Bush basher who immediately brought up Bush on your thread, when I was only responding to YOUR OWN reference to Bush & really stupid attempt to try to compare the damage he has done to the action by Feinstein, who I'm not a big fan of, btw....
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No, you didn't. You simply proved that you are as big of a party hack as many others on this site. Trying to downplay and spin your parties corrupt actions by comparing them on relative terms to Bush. Face it, NO ONE is going to compare to Bush on a relative basis. So please, tell us what a great bench mark he is for you.
"Everything is okay... as long as you are not as bad as Bush"
What a great philosophy to hold.
""Everything is okay... as long as you are not as bad as Bush"
Never said that or insinuated it. You seemed to be asking why you see more replies on a thread about Bush & the Iraq War, compared to a thread about a Feinstein earmark.
But you continue to misportray what I said & paint it in extremes, even after thorough humiliation, so there isn't much I can do for you.
Never said that or insinuated it. You seemed to be asking why you see more replies on a thread about Bush & the Iraq War, compared to a thread about a Feinstein earmark.
But you continue to misportray what I said & paint it in extremes, even after thorough humiliation, so there isn't much I can do for you.
TheDanold
Unimatrix
You're willfully ignorant of the numbers. Clinton vetoed more than 10 times the amount Bush did. And you keep viewing people split ideologically down party lines, the reality is that the northeast Repubs in the senate and congress pretty much vote like moderate to left-wing Democrats, while the old Southern Conservative Dems are pretty much all out of office or converted to being Repubs.
Ideologically Congress leaned left, detailed analysis of any year shows this, view the senate in 2004 for instance:
Let's examine what bills went through the senate in 2004:
http://acuratings.com/acu.cgi?ACT=5&CHAMBER=S&YEAR=2004
# Appropriations Bill. HR 2673 (Roll Call 3) 2004-01-22
The Senate adopted an omnibus spending bill with some fiscal restraint, and providing for vouchers to cover tuition at private schools in the District of Columbia.
<b>I supported this bill for less spending, all the Repubs did and about half the Dems, it passed.</b>
# Seat Belt Use. S 1072 (Roll Call 9) 2004-02-11
The Senate killed an amendment requiring state to either prove a 90 percent seat belt use rate or enact laws making it a primary crime not to use seat belts. States not meeting either requirement would lose highway construction funds.
I opposed this bill, seatbelt wearing should not be a crime, let alone a MAJOR crime like the Dems wanted.
I don't agree with forcing people to wear seatbelts.
<b>This is one of those many bills in a "Republican controlled" senate where all the Dems support it plus a handful of Liberal/moderate Repubs and it gets passed. Then Repubs get the blame...</b>
# Gun Manufacturers Liability. S 1805 (Roll Call 17)
2004-02-26
The Senate adopted an amendment prohibiting the sale or transfer of handguns by a licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer unless a secure gun storage or safety device is provided for each handgun.
I opposed this bill, safety devices on guns prevent people from using it quickly when they usually need to for protection. If you want one then fine, but it should not be forced.
This bill was: adopted
The vote was: 70-27 with all Dems and close to half of Repubs voting for it.
# Extended Unemployment Program. S 1805 Roll Call 18)
2004-02-26
The Senate rejected an effort to provide federal funds for an additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits beyond the state program.
I opposed this bill. We do not need more spending and more government unemployment ins.
This bill was: defeated
The vote was: 58-39, with most Dems voting for it and most Repubs and a few Dems against it.
# Assault Weapons Ban. S 1805 (Roll Call 24)
2004-03-02
The Senate adopted an amendment extending for ten years the ban on so-called "assault weapons." 6 304 "A
I opposed this bill. We do not need these guns banned, they are not even fully automatic. Against 2nd amendment too.
This bill was: adopted
The vote was: 52-47, again most Dems and a handful of Liberal Republicans voting for it.
# Education Funding. S Con Res 95 (Roll Call 35)
2004-03-10
The Senate defeated an amendment increasing federal education spending by $8.6 billion, financed by higher taxes.
I opposed this bill, we do not need more spending
This bill was: defeated
The vote was: 46-52, most Dems in favor, most Repubs against.
# Tax Cuts. S Con Res 95 (Roll Call 36) 2004-03-10
The Senate rejected an effort to rescind already-passed tax cuts, including the $1,000 child tax credit, the 10 percent income tax bracket at present income levels, and elimination of the marriage penalty.
I opposed this bill, tax cuts are fine, we need to concentrate on cutting spending.
This bill was: defeated
The vote was: 47-52, most Dems in favor, most Repubs against.
# Budget Procedures. S Con Res 95 (Roll Call 38)
2004-03-10
The Senate adopted an amendment establishing rules to make it much more difficult to cut taxes.
I opposed this bill. Again concentrate on cutting spending guys, not putting in permanent rules on trying to stop tax cuts.
This bill was: adopted
The vote was: 51-48, most Dems in favor, most Repubs against but enough Liberal ones to pass it.
# Health Programs. S Con Res 95 (Roll Call 46)
2004-03-11
The Senate defeated an amendment increasing spending on health programs by $30.5 billion, to be paid for by increases in cigarette taxes.
I opposed this bill, this is an absurd spending increase at a time with a large deficit.
This bill was: rejected
The vote was: 32-64, most Dems in favor, most Repubs against.
# Fetal Protection. HR 1997 (Roll Call 63)
2004-03-25
The Senate passed a bill making it a criminal offense to injure or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime.
Not sure where I stand here.
This bill was: approved
The vote was: 61-38, most Dems in favor, most Repubs against.
# Welfare Reform Reauthorization. HR 4 (Roll Call 65)
2004-04-01
The Senate defeated an effort to pass legislation continuing and extending the welfare reforms passed during the Clinton Administration.
<b>I supported this bill and cannot believe it didn't pass. This one really pissed me off, we all want the success of welfare reform continued and the Dems and a few stupid Liberal Republicans ended welfare reform.</b>
This bill was: defeated
The vote was: 51-47, with most Dems in favor and most Repubs against.
# Medical Malpractice. S 2207 (Roll Call 66)
2004-04-07
The Senate defeated an effort to move ahead on legislation curbing excessive awards for damages against emergency and trauma center personnel, as well as obstetricians and gynecologists.
I supported this bill, it would have helped curb the cost of healthcare.
This bill was: defeated
The vote was: 49-48, with most Dems against it and most Repubs for it.
# Internet Tax Moratorium. S 150 (Roll Call 75)
2004-04-29
The Senate approved a motion to move towards passage of legislation extending the Internet tax moratorium for four years.
I supported this bill, not many want to see Internet taxation.
This bill was: passed
The vote was: 64-34, with most Dems against it and most Repubs for it.
# Overtime Pay Rules. S 1637 (Roll Call 79)
2004-05-04
The Senate adopted an amendment blocking the Administration from updating outdated Labor Department rules governing overtime pay.
I opposed this bill, I welcomed less government in forcing overtime pay which ultimately ends up restricting the amount someone can work.
This bill was: adopted
The vote was: 52-47, with most Dems in favor and most Repubs against but enough Liberal ones to pass it.
# Disability Education. S 1248 (Roll Call 93)
2004-05-12
The Senate defeated an effort to increase and make mandatory federal funding for programs for educating the disabled by $2.2 billion annually over the next six years.
I opposed this bill, we don't need more spending and education belongs at the state level.
This bill was: defeated
The vote was: 56-41, with most Dems against it and most Repubs for it.
# Tobacco Attorney Fees. S 2400 (Roll Call 100)
2004-05-19
The Senate rejected an amendment that would have put the Senate on record as favoring legislation imposing an excise tax on attorneys in tobacco litigation cases equal to 5 percent of their fees beyond $20,000 per hour.
<b>I opposed this bill, the first time I agree with Dems more on here.</b> Lawyers may suck, but I don't think they should be taxed more
This bill was: defeated
The vote was: 37-62, with most Dems against it and most Repubs for it.
# Hate Crimes. S 2400 (Roll Call 114)
2004-06-15
The Senate adopted an amendment broadening the categories covered by hate crimes to include crimes motivated by the victim's gender, sexual orientation or disability.
I opposed this bill, hate crime laws are stupid and discriminatory. It is just as bad and wrong if someone is killed over money or race.
One person's life is not worth more than the other.
This bill was: adopted
The vote was: 65-33, with most Dems for it and most Repubs against it.
# Missile Defense. S 2400 (Roll Call 125)
2004-06-17
The Senate adopted and amendment requiring immediate and continued progress towards testing and eventual deployment of a missile defense shield.
I supported this bill, not by much though, I am starting to lose faith in it. Caesar made some good points, but ultimately give it some more time. Note this is the first time Dems actually didn't want more spending, though they cut nothing.
This bill was: adopted
The vote was: 55-44, with most Dems against it and most Repubs for it along with some moderate Dems.
Weak
# Tax Rate Increase. S 2400 (Roll Call 130)
2004-06-17
The Senate defeated an amendment raising the top income tax rate from 35 percent to 36 percent.
I opposed this bill, the rich are still taxed higher, get the spending cuts up and stop trying to put more taxes.
This bill was: rejected
The vote was: 44-53, with most Dems for it and most Repubs against it.
# Holmes Judicial Nomination. (Roll Call 153)
2004-07-06
The Senate confirmed President Bush's nomination of J. Leon Holmes of Arkansas to be a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
No opinion, probably good but I never followed this.
This bill was: adopted
The vote was: 51-46, with most Dems against it and most Repubs for it.
# Class Action Lawsuits. S 2062 (Roll Call 154)
2004-07-08
The Senate failed to move ahead on legislation moving class action cases involving at least 100 plaintiffs and at least $5 million to federal court.
I supported this bill, need to curb lawsuits and a higher court is usually smarter.
This bill was: rejected
The vote was: 44-43, with most Dems against it and most Repubs for it.
# Homeland Security. HR 4567 (Roll Call 170)
2004-09-09
The Senate defeated an effort to raise taxes to increase funding for local emergency personnel under the Homeland Security Act.
I opposed this bill.
This bill was: rejected
The vote was: 41-53, with most Dems for it and most Repubs against it.
# Employee Benefits. HR 4567 (Roll Call 177)
2004-09-14
The Senate killed an amendment designed to allow Homeland Security concerns to justify federal interference in employee-employer relations.
I opposed this bill.
This bill was: agreed
The vote was: 49-45, with most Dems for it along with some Liberal Republicans and most Repubs against it.
# Immigration Security. HR 4567 (Roll Call 182) 2004-09-14
The Senate defeated an effort to go beyond the budget to increase immigration security funding $350 million, including $200 million for biometric technologies.
I opposed this bill, we need to curb spending
This bill was: rejected
The vote was: 44-49, with most Dems in favor and most Repubs against.
Bush had ample oppurtunity to veto a lot of this including Dem sponsored bills but did not do so.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Right... because the Veto king hasn't signed it into law yet, it should not be an issue.
and NO, you were not responding to my comment that the dems were all on the bush bashing threads at the time. You brought up the "insignificance" of screwing the Vets because it was not as bad as what Bush has done. You were trying to spin it away as not a big deal. Now you are on the kick that because the veto king hasn't signed it yet that it is still not a big deal.
Please, continue showing us how much you like the kool-aid.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No, I implied there were more responses bashing bush on his grammar and use of Austrian vs. Austrailian. Do you really want to take a look at all the Bush bashing threads that are NOT related to the Iraq war?
Had the thread been on the Iraq war, that would have been something entirely different.
Dano, when in doubt, just cut & paste something.
Again - this thread really isn't a comparison between Bush & Clinton. Even on that, you've gone back & forth from trying to say Clinton didn't work with the GOP, to saying he did because it suited your point that the GOP was somehow more forthright about it than Democrats are, to going back to saying he didn't work with them that much.
Not that it matters. Bush promised & indicated that he would work with & listen to Democrats on Iraq, and he has not. Bush also pursued a pretty public 51% strategy on quite a few initiatives when the GOP had full control. Clinton might have done that, too, if he hadn't lost Congress in '94.
But who cares? This is not a thread about Clinton. You have focused on one point of my list, and seem to think you have proven that Bush is not incompetent in some way, because he worked with the other side better than Clinton (a contention which many on your side would find laughable).
Again - this thread really isn't a comparison between Bush & Clinton. Even on that, you've gone back & forth from trying to say Clinton didn't work with the GOP, to saying he did because it suited your point that the GOP was somehow more forthright about it than Democrats are, to going back to saying he didn't work with them that much.
Not that it matters. Bush promised & indicated that he would work with & listen to Democrats on Iraq, and he has not. Bush also pursued a pretty public 51% strategy on quite a few initiatives when the GOP had full control. Clinton might have done that, too, if he hadn't lost Congress in '94.
But who cares? This is not a thread about Clinton. You have focused on one point of my list, and seem to think you have proven that Bush is not incompetent in some way, because he worked with the other side better than Clinton (a contention which many on your side would find laughable).
(sigh) It's draining talking to people who are so willfully obtuse.
Screwing vets is not insignificant, and it's dishonest of you to suggest this is what I implied with my statement. Nor do I think the action is "okay" simply because Bush hasn't signed it yet. The only reason I brought up that trivial little detail is because you were questioning the effectiveness of the legislation, which is almost impossible to do before it's even enacted. I think you realize how stupid that was, but you're too stubborn to admit it.
Again, I think Feinstein's maneuver was bad, and I'm not a fan of hers. I don't think Democrats in general are incorruptable. I'm not defending anyone. I tried to put something in perspective, and you didn't like that, so you had to go to a bunch of extremes & tell a bunch of lies to try to justify yourself...
You really think Onceler is a "party hack"? I think you are way off on that SF.
Thanks, btw. Democrats, historically & currently, stand & fight for much more of what I believe in personally, but I do not put them on a pedastal, and I am generally cynical about politicians on both sides.
Freak will believe what he has to believe...
TheDanold
Unimatrix
Nah I used to buy Lorax was more independent, but his comments about Hillary being bad for the "health" of the Dem party and how they could be a lock in power for a long time without her, show clearly that he as partisan as they get.
The thing that makes Lorax different from other Liberal Democrats is that he is willing to do what it takes to keep Dems in power regardless of which Dem gets hurt or if Liberal ideology is sacrificed. Whereas other Dems don't usually go after their own or their own unpopular pieces of ideology.
By that notion at first glance he seems more independent but in reality he is the ultimate party hack, someone who puts the party and the health of the party above any other person or idea.
Hillary will be bad for the health of the party, as well as for the country. Should I keep that view under wraps, and pretend that she wouldn't be? Why wouldn't I want a healthier Democratic Party?
I also thought Bush was bad for the GOP & for the country, which is why I was hoping he wouldn't get the nomination in 2000. Turns out I was right.
I also thought Bush was bad for the GOP & for the country, which is why I was hoping he wouldn't get the nomination in 2000. Turns out I was right.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
In general, no, he is fairly independent on most issues. But to me he sure seemed eager to find ways to dismiss this issue. Which on this issue, in my eyes, made him a hack.
TheDanold
Unimatrix
Sure you are buddy, the only Dems you attack are the ones you think damage the party (usually by them taking an unpopular non-Liberal stance).
OK, I'm confused. I have been away for a while. Is Oncelor Lorax? If so, then I in no way think he is a "party hack."
I don't like Hillary primarily because she's a phony, has taken about a dozen positions on the Iraq war & has no core. I don't like Reid because he's petulant & says ridiculous things that perpetuate the notion that the Democrats are somehow "anti-troop" (statements which, btw, hacks like you LOVE to make an issue of). I like Obama, but think he's too green to be President.
You're the one who jumped on a thread about leadership, and immediately tried to "prove" that Bush was a good leader because he was (in your estimation) "better" than Clinton on just one of the points I listed (that's Clinton, who I didn't reference or remark on the leadership of in any way).
You are the hackitiest of hacks, DeMano, and everyone knows it. Sorry 'bout that....
TheDanold
Unimatrix
I've said Bush sucks and would prefer the Libertarian party in power over the Repubs.
I DO however practice practicality and recognize that most Repubs are very different than most Dems and that the practical route to economic Conservatism in power is most likely through the Repubs.
That can only make a "party hack" by a VERY 'Liberal' definition in more ways than one...