Shouldn't spending a Trillion dollars require a referendum?

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87
We elect officials to make decisions that represent our wishes.

This.

It is how democracy works for better or for worse.

No, a true democracy would have the citizens voting on everything that comes along.

We are a democratic republic...we elect people to vote on laws for us.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: BassBomb
Well? What do you think?

I dunno, what about starting a ruinously needless war in Iraq?

The the Dems voted for.

That's a lie.

Bush always said - before the vote - that voting for the resolution 'was not a vote for war', but a vote to give the administration leverage to get inspectors back into Iraq.

It worked - and Bush then lied, kicked the inspectors out and started a war.

The measure authorized presidential use of force against the "continuing threat posed by Iraq." On October 8, 2001, on the eve of the vote in Congress, Bush delivered a major address to the nation on the Iraqi threat. He said: "Approving this resolution does not mean that the military action is imminent or unavoidable. This resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice."

This spirit of the resolution was reflected in speeches legislators from both parties made prior to the vote. Senator John Warner, Virginia Republican, said passing the authorization was important to convince Saddam Hussein that American and international resolve is "real, unshakable and enforceable if there is to be a peaceful resolution." Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, said passage of the resolution made diplomatic success at the UN "more likely, and, therefore, war less likely."

The resolution was not a "war vote" because, at the time, the administration repeatedly claimed that Bush had not made the decision to use force. Rather, Congress voted for diplomacy. The congressional action was designed to strengthen secretary of state Colin Powell's position as he negotiated passage of the unanimous UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which put world pressure on Iraq to accept international inspections. These inspections, if allowed to run their full course, would have demonstrated Iraq was indeed disarmed.

Unfortunately, despite many public statements to the contrary, Bush was not interested in just ridding Iraq of WMDs. Instead, he focused on changing the Iraqi regime. Already in April 2002, he remarked to a British reporter: "I made up my mind that Saddam needs to go. That's about all I'm willing to share with you." That is why Bush did not let the inspections run their course and proceeded with determination in early 2003 to unseat the Iraqi leader.

A distinction w/o difference - Ultimately the measure allowed for use of force at presidents discression, was continually supported via Democratic funding and left wing pundits on the eve and shortly after war started where hardly no decent could be heard on Sunday news talk shows. It's only when things went south this intellectual dishonestly you're engage in became in vogue.

I wont even get into the neo-cons our current president has on staff, further validating both sides are bought and sold by the war party. Go over to antiwardotcom and read Justins analysis for all proof you need.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87
We elect officials to make decisions that represent our wishes.

This.

It is how democracy works for better or for worse.

No, a true democracy would have the citizens voting on everything that comes along.

We are a democratic republic...we elect people to vote on laws for us.

Either way our system works this with representation acting on our behalf. As bad as congress is, I fear a direct democracy more.

 

[dullard]

Spending $1T shouldn't require a referendum, since they will simply break it up into multiple bills. There are other reasons not to do it, but why focus on them since with one sentence I've shown that your proposal will be rendered useless.

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Perknose
I dunno, what about starting a ruinously needless war in Iraq?

The the Dems voted for.

US house:
[*]Democrats 39.2% Yes for the resolution, 60.3% against the resolution. 0.5% abstained.
[*]Republicans 96.4% Yes for the resolution, 2.7% against the resolution. 0.9% abstained.

And now supposedly it was the democrats who voted for it.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: halik
No,
do you really want people with average intelligence and 20something% college education making these decisions?

I don't know, do you want them to pay for it?

How about a referendum on every issue? Why not turn the whole country into California and have people make their owns laws/propositions - that's been working out great for them.

Why do you think that an average person would do a better job that elected representative with a legion of lawyers and public policy phds?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87
We elect officials to make decisions that represent our wishes.

This.

It is how democracy works for better or for worse.

No, a true democracy would have the citizens voting on everything that comes along.

We are a democratic republic...we elect people to vote on laws for us.

Either way our system works this with representation acting on our behalf. As bad as congress is, I fear a direct democracy more.

Yes, I feel the same way. I don't trust everyone to vote on what is best for this country at every turn. I have more trust in those exceptional few that I vote for into office to make the best decisions. Granted, we all know there are tons of problems but I think that overall things would be a lot worse in a true democracy.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: halik
No,
do you really want people with average intelligence and 20something% college education making these decisions?

We have people with below average intelligence in congress making decisions, how could a referendum be worse?

Sadly, I have only to point to Kahleeforneeya's fucked up system as a prime example of how it could (and is) worse.

Special interests get propositions passed with no means to pay for them...so the money has to come from the general budget...which already has no money to pay for anything.

Damn Boomer, you beat me to my point!

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: dullard
Spending $1T shouldn't require a referendum, since they will simply break it up into multiple bills. There are other reasons not to do it, but why focus on them since with one sentence I've shown that your proposal will be rendered useless.

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Perknose
I dunno, what about starting a ruinously needless war in Iraq?

The the Dems voted for.

US house:
[*]Democrats 39.2% Yes for the resolution, 60.3% against the resolution. 0.5% abstained.
[*]Republicans 96.4% Yes for the resolution, 2.7% against the resolution. 0.9% abstained.

And now supposedly it was the democrats who voted for it.

Why did you leave out senate vote on Joint Resolution 114?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Why did you leave out senate vote on Joint Resolution 114?

Should I put in every vote on every ammendment too? I just gave one example that disproved the point. I need not go further. Once you've disproved something, adding evidence for or against it is a meaningless waste of time and a distraction to everyone's efforts.

Yes, the democrat senators were slightly weighted in favor of it. While the republican senators were 98% for it. That still doesn't mean that this was a democrat lead issue.

 

[fskimospy]

I fail to see why it is better to replace the corrupt few with the retarded many.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: dullard
Spending $1T shouldn't require a referendum, since they will simply break it up into multiple bills. There are other reasons not to do it, but why focus on them since with one sentence I've shown that your proposal will be rendered useless.

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Perknose
I dunno, what about starting a ruinously needless war in Iraq?

The the Dems voted for.

US house:
[*]Democrats 39.2% Yes for the resolution, 60.3% against the resolution. 0.5% abstained.
[*]Republicans 96.4% Yes for the resolution, 2.7% against the resolution. 0.9% abstained.

And now supposedly it was the democrats who voted for it.

Why did you leave out senate vote on Joint Resolution 114?

Why do you asshats continue to play the Dem vs Rep blame game? This country will not get better no matter how many arguments you win or how many times you get to say "I told you so."

I swear. We all whine day and night about a lack of bipartisan agreements and representation thanks to the politicians playing that game, but then here we are on this forum doing the exact same thing in our own way almost every fucking day. I am tired of it. It is such a huge waste of time and money.

...then again, maybe they are representing us properly if we are doing the exact same bullshit. What a sad state of affairs.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Zebo
Why did you leave out senate vote on Joint Resolution 114?

Should I put in every vote on every ammendment too? I just gave one example that disproved the point. I need not go further. Once you've disproved something, adding evidence for or against it is a meaningless waste of time and a distraction to everyone's efforts.

You did not disprove anything. Many Democrats voted for it and a majority of Democrats in the Senates case supported it. It would not have passed w/o democrat support. The war could not have been funded without their continued support. In sum you are being a dishonest hack.

As to your edit about Republicans pimping it and their overwhelming support. Unlike 90% of you at the time I knew this would be a total fail and railed against it. Too bad your party didn't.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Zebo
You did not disprove anything. Many Democrats voted for it and a majority of Democrats in the Senates case supported it. It would not have passed w/o democrat support. The war could not have been funded without their continued support. In sum you are being a dishonest hack.

Budmantom's contention was that democrats voted for the war.

Of the 259 democrats in congress at the time, 111 voted for the war. So yes, some democrats did vote for it. But the majority were against it. There were 272 republicans in congress and 263 voted for it. The vast, vast majority were for it.

Thus, the original contention is false.

You can keep breaking congress numbers down to twist the facts (example: 100% of democrats named Hillary Clinton voted yes, but that still doesn't mean that democrats wanted the war). No matter what you say, 57% of democrats in congress voted against the bill or abstained.

The resolution was a republican led resolution, from a republican white house, supported by nearly all republicans, based upon evidence filtered through the republican's rose colored glasses, and intended to support republican promisses to try all other methods first. Yes, a few democrats joined in. It certainly wasn't a democrat bill though.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Agreed. However, this should probably be its own thread. Congress shirked its responsibility to either declare war or not, and various presidents over the past few decades have taken advantage of it. There is no such thing as an "authorization for military action". It is a made-up misnomer for what should properly be called a Declaration of War. If leverage is needed prior to going to war, then such a motion should be introduced and maybe tabled until said leverage is no longer needed, i.e. until crisis has been averted or it becomes clear that passage is necessary, whereby it is passed and bombs start falling. Congress is supposed to be heavily involved in these decisions, but they have effectively ceded their responsibilities.

It's off topic, but the wrong comment was made here, so it needs to be rebutted here.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: halik
No,
do you really want people with average intelligence and 20something% college education making these decisions?

I don't know, do you want them to pay for it?

Is that how this country worked? Since when did you rewrite the Constitution?

:laugh:

I don't think you have any room to talk.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BassBomb

Topic Title: Shouldn't spending a Trillion dollars require a referendum?

It's not going to happen under the existing legal framework.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: halik
No,
do you really want people with average intelligence and 20something% college education making these decisions?

I don't know, do you want them to pay for it?

How about a referendum on every issue? Why not turn the whole country into California and have people make their owns laws/propositions - that's been working out great for them.

Why do you think that an average person would do a better job that elected representative with a legion of lawyers and public policy phds?

Look, I didn't say it was a good idea, just asking a question.

 

[StageLeft]

Look, the US is becoming Japan. Article from 2002

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87
We elect officials to make decisions that represent our wishes.

This.

It is how democracy works for better or for worse.

No, a true democracy would have the citizens voting on everything that comes along.

We are a democratic republic...we elect people to vote on laws for us.

Either way our system works this with representation acting on our behalf. As bad as congress is, I fear a direct democracy more.

Yes, I feel the same way. I don't trust everyone to vote on what is best for this country at every turn. I have more trust in those exceptional few that I vote for into office to make the best decisions. Granted, we all know there are tons of problems but I think that overall things would be a lot worse in a true democracy.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


*breathe*


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Like lambs to the slaughter. Politicians love people like you.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Yes, I feel the same way. I don't trust everyone to vote on what is best for this country at every turn. I have more trust in those exceptional few that I vote for into office to make the best decisions. Granted, we all know there are tons of problems but I think that overall things would be a lot worse in a true democracy.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


*breathe*


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Like lambs to the slaughter. Politicians love people like you.

I think you are confusing "more trust" with "a lot of trust" or something. All I am saying is that I think the country is a better place by using this system of a democratic republic than I do a full blown out democracy.

I believe it is ok to dedicate an amount of trust to those that you choose to vote into office. That doesn't mean you should not keep an wide open eye on them or be objectively critical of their decisions though. Big difference.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87
We elect officials to make decisions that represent our wishes.

This.

It is how democracy works for better or for worse.

No, a true democracy would have the citizens voting on everything that comes along.

We are a democratic republic...we elect people to vote on laws for us.

Either way our system works this with representation acting on our behalf. As bad as congress is, I fear a direct democracy more.

Yes, I feel the same way. I don't trust everyone to vote on what is best for this country at every turn. I have more trust in those exceptional few that I vote for into office to make the best decisions. Granted, we all know there are tons of problems but I think that overall things would be a lot worse in a true democracy.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


*breathe*


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Like lambs to the slaughter. Politicians love people like you.

As sad as it is, the "average" member of Congress is more educated than Joe the Plumber.

Take it or leave it.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: BassBomb
Well? What do you think?

I dunno, what about starting a ruinously needless war in Iraq?

The the Dems voted for.

That's a lie.

Bush always said - before the vote - that voting for the resolution 'was not a vote for war', but a vote to give the administration leverage to get inspectors back into Iraq.

It worked - and Bush then lied, kicked the inspectors out and started a war.

The measure authorized presidential use of force against the "continuing threat posed by Iraq." On October 8, 2001, on the eve of the vote in Congress, Bush delivered a major address to the nation on the Iraqi threat. He said: "Approving this resolution does not mean that the military action is imminent or unavoidable. This resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice."

This spirit of the resolution was reflected in speeches legislators from both parties made prior to the vote. Senator John Warner, Virginia Republican, said passing the authorization was important to convince Saddam Hussein that American and international resolve is "real, unshakable and enforceable if there is to be a peaceful resolution." Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, said passage of the resolution made diplomatic success at the UN "more likely, and, therefore, war less likely."

The resolution was not a "war vote" because, at the time, the administration repeatedly claimed that Bush had not made the decision to use force. Rather, Congress voted for diplomacy. The congressional action was designed to strengthen secretary of state Colin Powell's position as he negotiated passage of the unanimous UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which put world pressure on Iraq to accept international inspections. These inspections, if allowed to run their full course, would have demonstrated Iraq was indeed disarmed.

Unfortunately, despite many public statements to the contrary, Bush was not interested in just ridding Iraq of WMDs. Instead, he focused on changing the Iraqi regime. Already in April 2002, he remarked to a British reporter: "I made up my mind that Saddam needs to go. That's about all I'm willing to share with you." That is why Bush did not let the inspections run their course and proceeded with determination in early 2003 to unseat the Iraqi leader.

LOL. "We were duped! It wasn't a vote for war!".

Question - which had more bi-partisanship. The vote for war in iraq, or the spendulus package?

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: BassBomb
Well? What do you think?

I dunno, what about starting a ruinously needless war in Iraq?

The the Dems voted for.

And the people were behind 85%...

Yeah, aftering being fed a load of bullshit.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Yes, I feel the same way. I don't trust everyone to vote on what is best for this country at every turn. I have more trust in those exceptional few that I vote for into office to make the best decisions. Granted, we all know there are tons of problems but I think that overall things would be a lot worse in a true democracy.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


*breathe*


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Like lambs to the slaughter. Politicians love people like you.

I think you are confusing "more trust" with "a lot of trust" or something. All I am saying is that I think the country is a better place by using this system of a democratic republic than I do a full blown out democracy.

I believe it is ok to dedicate an amount of trust to those that you choose to vote into office. That doesn't mean you should not keep an wide open eye on them or be objectively critical of their decisions though. Big difference.

The proposition system in California and other states is a great example for why direct democracy is a really bad idea. Every single election the ballot is loaded with ballot initiatives that have deliberately confusing wording, that advocate policies that sound good but have horrible results, etc.

Horrible idea. Horrible.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Spending $1 Trillion should require having $1 Trillion to spend.

What a concept.

What about that $5TR Bush and your buddies spent?

I appreciate your support of Bush but Obama doesn't have a clue.