Congress screws with defense authorization bill...

[palehorse]

Gay Protection Tacked Onto Defense Bill
I think that it's absolute bullsh*t that the Democrats (and 9 republicans) in Congress felt the need to fvck with the newest authorization bill like this. Their move to add the gay protections portion seems like a childish dare on a playground.

They are essentially daring Bush to be the first President in history to veto a defense authorization bill...

once again, they're playing political fvckin games instead of doing their g'damn jobs properly.

The most ridiculous quote of the day is Kennedy equating gay rights to terrorism:

Mr. Kennedy and supporters of the measure, similar to three versions that have failed in the past decade, likened hate crimes to terrorism and said the defense bill is a perfect fit for it.

"The defense authorization is about dealing with the challenges of terrorism overseas. ... This [bill] is about terrorism in our neighborhood," Mr. Kennedy said.

I mean, wtf?! 😕

I'm all for debate regarding gay rights, and I'm very much in favor of installing protections for gays, but I just do not feel that it's appropriate to add it to a defense authorization bill.

Then there is this...

Democrats say they relish vetoes of the defense bill or legislation to expand the State Children's Health Care Program, which Mr. Bush also promises to veto.

What the heck is with this trend lately of passing bills that will intentionally draw a veto?!

bah... all of these politicians make me sick, and I do believe they've gone off the deep end with this latest game of theirs. The American people, including myself, may wish to see each of these issues taken care of, but I think most would agree that they should each be argued and voted upon separately... right?

/discuss

 

[K1052]

Democrats trying to stir the pot. They lack the intestinal fortitude to make good on the promises to their electorate with regards to the war so now they are trying to sneak up behind the issue and stab it in the back.

 

[yllus]

What is the point of being able to tack on unrelated items to a bill like you guys in the States do so often? The ability sort of exists in our system (Canada), but I've never seen that up here in any significant way. Very strange.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: yllus
What is the point of being able to tack on unrelated items to a bill like you guys in the States do so often? The ability sort of exists in our system (Canada), but I've never seen that up here in any significant way. Very strange.

nobody has ever claimed that our system is "perfect," but things are getting a bit out of hand lately, yes.

This is the second time Congress has tried to force Bush to veto an authorization bill due to the items they've tacked on. Only this time, the item tacked on doesnt even have anything to do with defense, which makes it all the more ridiculous!

bah... they're playing fvcking games instead of doing what they were voted in to do. I think K1052 summed it up perfectly...

 

[DanceMan]

Tit for tat. This has been going on for a long time. Dems dealt with it in the previous congress, so Repubs can deal with it now.

I don't like these kinds of attachments either, but it's part of the political game. Or, you can always try to get the Line Item Veto amendment passed (which will probably never happen).

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: yllus
What is the point of being able to tack on unrelated items to a bill like you guys in the States do so often? The ability sort of exists in our system (Canada), but I've never seen that up here in any significant way. Very strange.

nobody has ever claimed that our system is "perfect," but things are getting a bit out of hand lately, yes.

This is the second time Congress has tried to force Bush to veto an authorization bill due to the items they've tacked on. Only this time, the item tacked on doesnt even have anything to do with defense, which makes it all the more ridiculous!

bah... they're playing fvcking games instead of doing what they were voted in to do. I think K1052 summed it up perfectly...

"lately", seems like these shenanigans started around 2002ish. Now that the Dems do it, suddenly a giant "WTF?" is raised.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: yllus
What is the point of being able to tack on unrelated items to a bill like you guys in the States do so often? The ability sort of exists in our system (Canada), but I've never seen that up here in any significant way. Very strange.

nobody has ever claimed that our system is "perfect," but things are getting a bit out of hand lately, yes.

This is the second time Congress has tried to force Bush to veto an authorization bill due to the items they've tacked on. Only this time, the item tacked on doesnt even have anything to do with defense, which makes it all the more ridiculous!

bah... they're playing fvcking games instead of doing what they were voted in to do. I think K1052 summed it up perfectly...

"lately", seems like these shenanigans started around 2002ish. Now that the Dems do it, suddenly a giant "WTF?" is raised.

so you support their combining completely unrelated issues on single bills? Do you also support the passing of bills that they know ahead of time will draw a veto?

Or are you simply justifying it based on the old 'two wrongs make a right' argument?

The 104th congress played similar games with President Clinton, and it was wrong then -- just as the current congress is wrong for doing the same thing now.

So, unlike you, I'm willing to condemn both parties for their bullsh*t games.

 

[jhbball]

Sounds fine to me.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: yllus
What is the point of being able to tack on unrelated items to a bill like you guys in the States do so often? The ability sort of exists in our system (Canada), but I've never seen that up here in any significant way. Very strange.

nobody has ever claimed that our system is "perfect," but things are getting a bit out of hand lately, yes.

This is the second time Congress has tried to force Bush to veto an authorization bill due to the items they've tacked on. Only this time, the item tacked on doesnt even have anything to do with defense, which makes it all the more ridiculous!

bah... they're playing fvcking games instead of doing what they were voted in to do. I think K1052 summed it up perfectly...

"lately", seems like these shenanigans started around 2002ish. Now that the Dems do it, suddenly a giant "WTF?" is raised.

so you support their combining completely unrelated issues on single bills? Do you also support the passing of bills that they know ahead of time will draw a veto?

Or are you simply justifying it based on the old 'two wrongs make a right' argument?

The 104th congress played similar games with President Clinton, and it was wrong then -- just as the current congress is wrong for doing the same thing now.

So, unlike you, I'm willing to condemn both parties for their bullsh*t games.

I neither support/don't support(not an American), but turn around *is* fair play. Your outrage is just outrage of convenience.

 

[SViscusi]

Maybe if the republicans didn't filibuster everything that the democrats wanted to do the there would be no need for this.

 

[ElFenix]

if i'm reading it right, does this bill give the FBI jurisdiction to investigate crimes motivated by the victim's sexual orientation? is that constitutional?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
if i'm reading it right, does this bill give the FBI jurisdiction to investigate crimes motivated by the victim's sexual orientation? is that constitutional?

That's the question most Republicans, and Bush, have with the Gay Protections portion of the bill - hence the reason I believe it needs to be debated on its own merit.

The Dems simply wish to avoid all that nastiness by tacking it onto the Defense Bill which the DoD and Bush desperately need to pass.

I think the most ridiculous aspect is Kennedy attempting to equate gay protection with terrorism. I mean, wtf?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ElFenix
if i'm reading it right, does this bill give the FBI jurisdiction to investigate crimes motivated by the victim's sexual orientation? is that constitutional?

That's the question most Republicans, and Bush, have with the Gay Protections portion of the bill - hence the reason I believe it needs to be debated on its own merit.

The Dems simply wish to avoid all that nastiness by tacking it onto the Defense Bill which the DoD and Bush desperately need to pass.

I think the most ridiculous aspect is Kennedy attempting to equate gay protection with terrorism. I mean, wtf?

Any "Hate" crime is certainly an act of Terror to the victim and those similar to the victim.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Welcome to politics as Democrat...


Just like the "Children's Health Bill" - they will get their little press based lackies to spread it as one thing while defrauding the American people by their actual actions.

What earmarks? What do you mean someone 25 years old ain't a kid? Granted that last item was to get their forum lackeys who live in their mom's basements votes!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ElFenix
if i'm reading it right, does this bill give the FBI jurisdiction to investigate crimes motivated by the victim's sexual orientation? is that constitutional?

That's the question most Republicans, and Bush, have with the Gay Protections portion of the bill - hence the reason I believe it needs to be debated on its own merit.

The Dems simply wish to avoid all that nastiness by tacking it onto the Defense Bill which the DoD and Bush desperately need to pass.

I think the most ridiculous aspect is Kennedy attempting to equate gay protection with terrorism. I mean, wtf?

Any "Hate" crime is certainly an act of Terror to the victim and those similar to the victim.

jesus... Sen. Kennedy, thank you for your response.

But then, please explain to me what two rednecks beating up a gay man has to do with the Department of Defense.

I eagerly await your response...

 

[jackschmittusa]

I have always hated it when oddball attachments are added too. But your outrage over this one is misplaced. The Republicans have made it clear that this is how to play the game for some time. I think hate crime laws are BS too, but if we have to have them, they should be inclusive. So, I think the whole thing is pretty is pretty crappy, but it is just SSDD. I have always felt that Congress should pass a law creating categories of laws (crime, defense, social, etc.), and require that all components of a bill be of the same category.

The child health care bill is something different though. There is a possibility that Bush might sign it anyway. And it is a matter of making a permanent public record that Congress tried to act, and Bush prevented the measure. No revisionist history later.

 

[jonks]

I understand your frustration at this example of seemingly unrelated legislation tacked on to a defense bill, but I take exception to your larger point. If Congress only passed bills it thought the president would not veto, we wouldn't need congress at all. A president who states ahead of time that he will veto certain legislation is effectively "daring" congress to pass such a bill. To "dare" the president to veto legislation is just turn around.

Do you object in general to passing legislation that the president says he will veto because you think it is a waste of time? There is a great political difference between a president vetoing a bill and congress deciding not to pass a bill. Even if congress thinks the president will veto a bill, let the country see who decided to do what. Similar to the political difference between bill the president signs or a bill the president doesn't sign that becomes law due to the 10 day signature requirement. It indicates how strongly the president's position on the bill is.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Topic Title: Congress screws with defense authorization bill...
Topic Summary: ...by tacking on a gay protection amendment and daring Bush to veto!... wtf?!


Gay Protection Tacked Onto Defense Bill
I think that it's absolute bullsh*t that the Democrats (and 9 republicans) in Congress felt the need to fvck with the newest authorization bill like this. Their move to add the gay protections portion seems like a childish dare on a playground.

They are essentially daring Bush to be the first President in history to veto a defense authorization bill...

once again, they're playing political fvckin games instead of doing their g'damn jobs properly.

The most ridiculous quote of the day is Kennedy equating gay rights to terrorism:

Mr. Kennedy and supporters of the measure, similar to three versions that have failed in the past decade, likened hate crimes to terrorism and said the defense bill is a perfect fit for it.

"The defense authorization is about dealing with the challenges of terrorism overseas. ... This [bill] is about terrorism in our neighborhood," Mr. Kennedy said.

I mean, wtf?! 😕

I'm all for debate regarding gay rights, and I'm very much in favor of installing protections for gays, but I just do not feel that it's appropriate to add it to a defense authorization bill.

Then there is this...

Democrats say they relish vetoes of the defense bill or legislation to expand the State Children's Health Care Program, which Mr. Bush also promises to veto.

What the heck is with this trend lately of passing bills that will intentionally draw a veto?!

bah... all of these politicians make me sick, and I do believe they've gone off the deep end with this latest game of theirs. The American people, including myself, may wish to see each of these issues taken care of, but I think most would agree that they should each be argued and voted upon separately... right?

/discuss

Absolutely fvking awesome :thumbsup:

It's hysterical that you are moaning when the Dems weren't doing anything and now that they are you moan again.

The more they make you moan the better, go Dems :thumbsup:

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
I understand your frustration at this example of seemingly unrelated legislation tacked on to a defense bill, but I take exception to your larger point. If Congress only passed bills it thought the president would not veto, we wouldn't need congress at all. A president who states ahead of time that he will veto certain legislation is effectively "daring" congress to pass such a bill. To "dare" the president to veto legislation is just turn around.

it's when the two actions are combined that it becomes a major issue. While I am in favor of Congress challenging the President with poignant bills designed to get him to go on the record as against a specific issue, in this case, I am upset because they are doing so by combining two unrelated issues. If the President is FOR the authorization aspects, but against the gay protection ones, then a single veto on both will not reflect his positions accordingly.

Do you object in general to passing legislation that the president says he will veto because you think it is a waste of time?

actually, no. At least the timetables in the last bill were related to the bill itself. This situation is entirely different.

There is a great political difference between a president vetoing a bill and congress deciding not to pass a bill. Even if congress thinks the president will veto a bill, let the country see who decided to do what.

see above.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Topic Title: Congress screws with defense authorization bill...
Topic Summary: ...by tacking on a gay protection amendment and daring Bush to veto!... wtf?!


Gay Protection Tacked Onto Defense Bill
I think that it's absolute bullsh*t that the Democrats (and 9 republicans) in Congress felt the need to fvck with the newest authorization bill like this. Their move to add the gay protections portion seems like a childish dare on a playground.

They are essentially daring Bush to be the first President in history to veto a defense authorization bill...

once again, they're playing political fvckin games instead of doing their g'damn jobs properly.

The most ridiculous quote of the day is Kennedy equating gay rights to terrorism:

Mr. Kennedy and supporters of the measure, similar to three versions that have failed in the past decade, likened hate crimes to terrorism and said the defense bill is a perfect fit for it.

"The defense authorization is about dealing with the challenges of terrorism overseas. ... This [bill] is about terrorism in our neighborhood," Mr. Kennedy said.

I mean, wtf?! 😕

I'm all for debate regarding gay rights, and I'm very much in favor of installing protections for gays, but I just do not feel that it's appropriate to add it to a defense authorization bill.

Then there is this...

Democrats say they relish vetoes of the defense bill or legislation to expand the State Children's Health Care Program, which Mr. Bush also promises to veto.

What the heck is with this trend lately of passing bills that will intentionally draw a veto?!

bah... all of these politicians make me sick, and I do believe they've gone off the deep end with this latest game of theirs. The American people, including myself, may wish to see each of these issues taken care of, but I think most would agree that they should each be argued and voted upon separately... right?

/discuss

Absolutely fvking awesome :thumbsup:

It's hysterical that you are moaning when the Dems weren't doing anything and now that they are you moan again.

The more they make you moan the better, go Dems :thumbsup:

So let me see you go on the record with this: Are you FOR, or AGAINST, the passing of bills containing legislature for two entirely separate issues?

 

[Moonbeam]

George, If You Don't Eat Your Meat, You Can't Have Any Pudding.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: yllus
What is the point of being able to tack on unrelated items to a bill like you guys in the States do so often? The ability sort of exists in our system (Canada), but I've never seen that up here in any significant way. Very strange.

nobody has ever claimed that our system is "perfect," but things are getting a bit out of hand lately, yes.

This is the second time Congress has tried to force Bush to veto an authorization bill due to the items they've tacked on. Only this time, the item tacked on doesnt even have anything to do with defense, which makes it all the more ridiculous!

bah... they're playing fvcking games instead of doing what they were voted in to do. I think K1052 summed it up perfectly...

"lately", seems like these shenanigans started around 2002ish.

Now that the Dems do it, suddenly a giant "WTF?" is raised.

Yep, the hypocrital standard for the U.S.

They sure dished it out but can't take it back eh :laugh:

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: yllus
What is the point of being able to tack on unrelated items to a bill like you guys in the States do so often? The ability sort of exists in our system (Canada), but I've never seen that up here in any significant way. Very strange.

nobody has ever claimed that our system is "perfect," but things are getting a bit out of hand lately, yes.

This is the second time Congress has tried to force Bush to veto an authorization bill due to the items they've tacked on. Only this time, the item tacked on doesnt even have anything to do with defense, which makes it all the more ridiculous!

bah... they're playing fvcking games instead of doing what they were voted in to do. I think K1052 summed it up perfectly...

"lately", seems like these shenanigans started around 2002ish.

Now that the Dems do it, suddenly a giant "WTF?" is raised.

Yep, the hypocritical standard for the U.S.

They sure dished it out but can't take it back eh :laugh:

I sincerely hope you guys at least recognize the immature nature of the 'two wrongs make a right' position you are taking...

now, Dave, please answer the question I posed to you in my last post.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
So let me see you go on the record with this: Are you FOR, or AGAINST, the passing of bills containing legislature for two entirely separate issues?

you yourself have been complaining that the dems are getting nothing done.

this is just a tactic to circumvent their non-majority majority and the veto stamp that Bush suddenly found after misplacing it for so long.

it's not the best, but it's the only game in town.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
George, If You Don't Eat Your Meat, You Can't Have Any Pudding.

How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?!

OK, while I appreciate your taste in music, do you have anything to say that might be relevant to the topic of this thread?