Coppermine wrote:I suppose the longer we stay, the better chance we have to "win"
I wonder how many people said the same thing about 40 years ago?
Well, remember, this isn't Vietnam
I don't know, I'm pretty frustrated by it all but I'm also pretty numb to it, which is unfortunate. About 6 months ago you would find me getting pretty fired up about this situation we have over there, but now I just have to hope for the best and realize it's out of my hands. And it's out of all of our hands. This isn't World War II, we haven't been asked to sacrifice a thing other than our all-volunteer armed forces. We're told to buy, spend, live... Ford isn't making tanks instead of cars, women aren't out building airplanes, no one is rationing food or being told buy war bonds.
It's very impersonal and that's is disheartening to me.
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Art Vandelay wrote:It looks like the Senate just passed a similar bill this morning. It's going to be really interesting to see how this all plays out.
Yep, just saw that headline.
I'd love to see the troops home by March, 2008. The less time they're over there the better. But if by leaving at that time we make the world situation less safe for America/Americans, I think it's a horrible idea.
BGbootha wrote:4. How is it possible that he can Veto this? Why is it even Vetoable?
Why wouldn't it be vetoable? Isn't that what the whole checks-and-balances thing is about?
Yes, but the very idea that the President needs their permission to have troops over there, and now he no longer has that permission, by vetoing this, he is in essence vetoing checks and balances itself.
BGbootha wrote:OK so now I have a question, or a couple of questions.
1. We are NOT at war, we have not declared war since December 8th, 1941.
I've said all along that this is not a WAR.
knapplc wrote:I think what BG is getting at is, if the President did not declare war, and this "military action" is happening at the behest of Congress (as it is), how then does the President have the right/ability/authority to veto Congress' demand that the troops come home?
Actually it makes sense. Congress wants to look good as a whole and individually (image, future elections, etc) and the popular thing to do is bring our troops home. That is the absolute worst move that can be made right now, and since the president doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected and is ultimately responsible for the safety of our country, he can take the public's heat since he can't be re-elected, be the bad guy, and make the decision that needs to be made, regardless of what the popular opinion is. Popular opinion does not equal the right move to make. Someone's got to take the hit, so why not the president instead of all of Congress who are more worried about their own agendas?
Art Vandelay wrote:there's more than $20 billion in pork added onto this because every congressman in the country fought to get their pet projects included
This is one thing about our government that drives me nuts! Quit adding things that are irrelevant to the main bill! Vote on this bill, then move on to the next bill. Don't just tack on extra junk that's not relevant to the topic of the main bill!
Grrrrrrrrrr...........
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
BGbootha wrote:OK so now I have a question, or a couple of questions.
1. We are NOT at war, we have not declared war since December 8th, 1941.
I've said all along that this is not a WAR.
knapplc wrote:I think what BG is getting at is, if the President did not declare war, and this "military action" is happening at the behest of Congress (as it is), how then does the President have the right/ability/authority to veto Congress' demand that the troops come home?
Actually it makes sense. Congress wants to look good as a whole and individually (image, future elections, etc) and the popular thing to do is bring our troops home. That is the absolute worst move that can be made right now, and since the president doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected and is ultimately responsible for the safety of our country, he can take the public's heat since he can't be re-elected, be the bad guy, and make the decision that needs to be made, regardless of what the popular opinion is. Popular opinion does not equal the right move to make. Someone's got to take the hit, so why not the president instead of all of Congress who are more worried about their own agendas?
Art Vandelay wrote:there's more than $20 billion in pork added onto this because every congressman in the country fought to get their pet projects included
This is one thing about our government that drives me nuts! Quit adding things that are irrelevant to the main bill! Vote on this bill, then move on to the next bill. Don't just tack on extra junk that's not relevant to the topic of the main bill!
Grrrrrrrrrr...........
They're called "earmarks" and believe it or not, the new democratic congress is working pretty hard to eliminate them; I believe they immediately passed a measure requiring congressmen to attach their name and intention on every earmark added to a bill. I agree that it may be helpful for localities who legitimately need funding for something... you really can't have the entire house vote on every single spending bill, but the congressmen should be held responsible and accountable and these earmarks should be permitted to be removed prior to a vote on the bill.
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Madison wrote:This is one thing about our government that drives me nuts! Quit adding things that are irrelevant to the main bill! Vote on this bill, then move on to the next bill. Don't just tack on extra junk that's not relevant to the topic of the main bill!
Couldn't agree more, see Port Security Act....I mean No Online Poker act
OK so, after Vietnam. The Gov't decided that the president should not be allowed to use troops without approval.
SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
And now we have put the President in position to veto this very idea, that was supposed to limit his power.
Madison wrote:This is one thing about our government that drives me nuts! Quit adding things that are irrelevant to the main bill! Vote on this bill, then move on to the next bill. Don't just tack on extra junk that's not relevant to the topic of the main bill!
Couldn't agree more, see Port Security Act....I mean No Online Poker act
yeah thats exactly what i was about to say. good thing there are still places to play though. take that CONGRESS
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Art Vandelay » Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:01 am 
