Are the Democrats going to cave?

[imported_Shivetya]

Biden says they will shove it down Bush's throat

But Reid is looking to move on to the next set of issues to pummel Bush on.



PIN HIM DOWN.

Give Bush his bill without pork and without time tables funding the troops removing that issue from the table. Then set the debate with a one item bill, GET OUT BY X. Force Bush to debate that issue separately and let the American people decide.

A Democrat controlled Whitehouse is not a given... and playing the game too long may exhaust the public's patience for both parties.

 

[ayabe]

Just found this, people like you might want to take note:

?I think it?s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.?

George W. Bush, 6/5/99 on Kosovo

 

[Slick5150]

A post with word Defeatocrats in the subject kind of eliminates any chance of a though provoking discussion within.

 

[Farang]

The timetable should be attached to the spending bill, as it relates to the money being provided.

The pork I agree should be removed and was a dumb political move, but don't act like that didn't happen with previous spending bills under a Republican Congress. That is just how the game is played in Washington.

I don't even know why I'm replying to this.. you apparently just regurgitate whatever the administration feeds you and have no capability to form your own opinion. I don't say that because I disagree with you, I say that because you've offered nothing in this topic aside from the party line.

 

[ayabe]

Shiv - since you've taken the route of trying to call the mod police on people lately I think you should be careful with trolling titles like this, lest someone sink to your level and try to pull off some unwarranted bannage.

 

[EagleKeeper]

A timetable by Congress may be unconstitutional.

Congress has the authority to declare and fund war.

It does not have the authority to wage war.

Setting a timetable may force such an issue up to the US Supreme Court.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
A timetable by Congress may be unconstitutional.

Congress has the authority to declare and fund war.

It does not have the authority to wage war.

Setting a timetable may force such an issue up to the US Supreme Court.

Ha.. it is definately within the authority of Congress. There are numerous precedents.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
A post with word Defeatocrats in the subject kind of eliminates any chance of a though provoking discussion within.

Sort of like the "repig" post too??

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
A post with word Defeatocrats in the subject kind of eliminates any chance of a though provoking discussion within.

And I've found very few posters can actually debate a topic, simply throw slurs and innuendo around or worse yet distort facts to support a false argument.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
A post with word Defeatocrats in the subject kind of eliminates any chance of a though provoking discussion within.

That's Ok, at least the GOP America Hating War Mongers are showing themselves front and center now.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Slick5150
A post with word Defeatocrats in the subject kind of eliminates any chance of a though provoking discussion within.

That's Ok, at least the GOP America Hating War Mongers are showing themselves front and center now.

raise hand.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Slick5150
A post with word Defeatocrats in the subject kind of eliminates any chance of a though provoking discussion within.

And I've found very few posters can actually debate a topic, simply throw slurs and innuendo around or worse yet distort facts to support a false argument.

Can't be surprised when you have a President that does it.

You know what they say about ****** falling downhill.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
A post with word Defeatocrats in the subject kind of eliminates any chance of a though provoking discussion within.

too damn bad. If Repig is allowed then why not call Democrats Defeatocrats?



Thats what they are, defeatocrats, caving into terrorism and caving into Buh.

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Slick5150
A post with word Defeatocrats in the subject kind of eliminates any chance of a though provoking discussion within.

too damn bad. If Repig is allowed then why not call Democrats Defeatocrats?



Thats what they are, defeatocrats, caving into terrorism and caving into Buh.

I didn't say it should or shouldn't be allowed, but if you're going to post a thread with that in the subject line, it pretty much rules out any possibility of starting off an actual discussion on this issue (and I'm talking Defeatocrats, Repigs, or whatever other language 12 year olds use to prove a point)

 

[Arcex]

First of all, try to keep an open mind Shivetya, it just makes you look bad when you start off like that.

Second, I don't like the pork that gets inserted to bills these days, but like someone else mentioned, that's how its done in DC. I think it's pathetic but nothing short of re-writing our entire legislative system will fix it.

Third, Bush needs to stop playing partisan politics and start working with the other branches of government, or he should be impeached which I know isn't going to happen. I never liked that man, he's the worst kind of hypocrite, and he's not particularly intelligent, but I'm honestly starting to feel an actual loathing for him.

 

[smashp]

Bush will veto,

Democrats will pass a supplemental Bill Funding the troops for 2-4 months.

If the Surge Strategy "Fails" and public opinion continues the way it has, many republicans will adopt the timetable down the road to get a veto proof bill.


If the Surge exceeds, everyone wins

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
A post with word Defeatocrats in the subject kind of eliminates any chance of a though provoking discussion within.

I see the Mods made him change the Title.

It may not have a chance to get picked up by the mainstream news or Wiki as much as before.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
A timetable by Congress may be unconstitutional.

Congress has the authority to declare and fund war.

It does not have the authority to wage war.

Setting a timetable may force such an issue up to the US Supreme Court.

Ha.. it is definately within the authority of Congress. There are numerous precedents.

Maybe by default this has happened, however, the issue may become forced as to does Congress have the authority to control how the war is implimented. That may be stepping beyond their constitutional scope.

Bush could/should veto a time limitation and force the issue

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Slick5150
A post with word Defeatocrats in the subject kind of eliminates any chance of a though provoking discussion within.

I see the Mods made him change the Title.

It may not have a chance to get picked up by the mainstream news or Wiki as much as before.

It would be nice to see the mods change other obviously troll posts like the repig one. Hard to have a discussion/debate on Politics and News when what gets posted as an assertion is so pointedly biased especially when leftist posts are not changed while right wing posts are.

 

[piasabird]

Bush should just refuse to sign any other bill until he gets a funding bill. If the entire government has to shut down that is fine with me.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Bush should just refuse to sign any other bill until he gets a funding bill. If the entire government has to shut down that is fine with me.

I would not mind a replay of what happened when Clinton had the Whitehouse and the Republicans had Congress in regards to the budget fights.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
A timetable by Congress may be unconstitutional.

Congress has the authority to declare and fund war.

It does not have the authority to wage war.

Setting a timetable may force such an issue up to the US Supreme Court.

Ha.. it is definately within the authority of Congress. There are numerous precedents.

Maybe by default this has happened, however, the issue may become forced as to does Congress have the authority to control how the war is implimented. That may be stepping beyond their constitutional scope.

Bush could/should veto a time limitation and force the issue

They are not controlling how the war is implemented, they are putting conditions on providing the money to fund the war. As funding is totally within the constitutional authority of congress, I can't see how the President would have the right to dictate the terms under which that funding was provided. It's really indirect authority...Congress can't order the military to do something, but it can sure as hell say it won't provide any money unless the President orders the military to do it. It's only a confusing constitutional issue if you buy into the expansive powers Bush alleges he has as commander in chief.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: piasabird
Bush should just refuse to sign any other bill until he gets a funding bill. If the entire government has to shut down that is fine with me.

I would not mind a replay of what happened when Clinton had the Whitehouse and the Republicans had Congress in regards to the budget fights.

Bush will look like an idiot if that happens. When you're doing a piss poor job of managing a war, the only thing that could make public perception worse is if you were also stubborn about it.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
A timetable by Congress may be unconstitutional.

Congress has the authority to declare and fund war.

It does not have the authority to wage war.

Setting a timetable may force such an issue up to the US Supreme Court.

Ha.. it is definately within the authority of Congress. There are numerous precedents.

Maybe by default this has happened, however, the issue may become forced as to does Congress have the authority to control how the war is implimented. That may be stepping beyond their constitutional scope.

Bush could/should veto a time limitation and force the issue

They are not controlling how the war is implemented, they are putting conditions on providing the money to fund the war. As funding is totally within the constitutional authority of congress, I can't see how the President would have the right to dictate the terms under which that funding was provided. It's really indirect authority...Congress can't order the military to do something, but it can sure as hell say it won't provide any money unless the President orders the military to do it. It's only a confusing constitutional issue if you buy into the expansive powers Bush alleges he has as commander in chief.

Exactly. Congress doesn't write a blank check to the executive and say "do as you please," they say 'Here is $x. This is to be used for y and z.' In this case, 'Here is $125 billion. This is to be used to withdrawal our troops from Iraq by 2008.'

Nobody is pressing the issue, not even Bush. He is just disagreeing with Congress and refusing to sign the bill. I haven't heard him ever say that Congress is legally overstepping their bounds (although he does say he will veto it to prevent hindering our commanders, this is part of his personal reason for vetoing the bill and not any claim of what is in the constitution).

 

[FoBoT]

I don't see why the Democrats should pass any war spending bill at all. they want the troops to come home (surrender) then just stop funding the war. The President cannot initiate legislation, so they should defund the war by not passing anything for him to veto. it is a silly game they are playing, both sides are playing politics with the troops/war