Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.
Coward Democrat Senate approves $70 billion war fund
news.yahoo.com — The US Senate late Tuesday passed a half-trillion dollar budget bill for 2008 that includes 70 billion dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, dealing a major victory to President George W. Bush.
1carmen- 1836 diggs
- digg it
- Branyers, on 12/19/2007, -22/+36How is this not on the front page?
- alvinrod, on 12/19/2007, -10/+6Probably because at the time I'm reading the article, it has only 71 diggs, likely not enough for it to be on the front page.
Yeah it sucks that more people aren't interested in this type of thing, because it really is important. - 5urr3al5am, on 12/19/2007, -13/+5Hmm could it be that the Democrats tried to use political black mail against GW Bush but don't actually believe any of the attacks against him? But possibly that they do really agree to the down and dirty secret that we do need to be in the middle east fighting against Terrorism? There must be a reason that a senate with a large Democratic majority would approve this bill?
- texpundit, on 12/19/2007, -0/+16Hmm could it be that THERE'S NO REAL DIFFERENCE IN BETWEEN THE VAST MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS AND IT'S BEEN A RUSE TO CON YOU INTO BELIEVING THAT YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A CHOICE WHEN ELECTIONS COME AROUND?!?
SHEESH! I mean, with as blatantly obvious as it's been lately, you'd think most people would have caught on...and then you get articles like this that show that plenty of people are brainwashed into believing that there's some real duality in government.
I weep for the future of my country.- norman619, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3I think it's time to put Old Yeller to sleep and start over.
- texpundit, on 12/19/2007, -0/+16Hmm could it be that THERE'S NO REAL DIFFERENCE IN BETWEEN THE VAST MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS AND IT'S BEEN A RUSE TO CON YOU INTO BELIEVING THAT YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A CHOICE WHEN ELECTIONS COME AROUND?!?
- stevene, on 12/19/2007, -0/+7It is.
- jwolcott, on 12/19/2007, -8/+10@PATSCRU: Great point!
---------------
People that call the passing of this spending bill cowardly on the democrats end are completely clueless when it comes to the legislative branch. 1) The democrats are opposed to this bill, with 90% of dems in favor of a spending bill with withdrawal dates. 2) The number of republicans crossing party lines for a withdrawal spending bill can be counted on your hands. 3) Bush will veto any spending plan with strings attached. 4) Since no republicans are crossing party lines, there is no way for the dems to override the presidential veto with their RAZOR THIN CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITY. 5) They are forced to either pass a bill so basic military options like feeding the troops can continue, or hold a fillibuster which would put our troops in harm's way at some point or another.
STOP blaming democrats for a republican minority that is unwilling to break party lines to get our troops out by overriding Bush's vetos.
by PATSCRU
---------------- sibhod, on 12/19/2007, -1/+13No no no no. If the democrats holding the majority would wield that power to refuse to vote for any bill that doesn't contain a deadline, Bush would have to capitulate. If Bush is allowed to say he'll veto any bill that contains timetables, the democrats should say they will vote down any bill that DOESN'T contain timetables.
The democrats really don't want us out of the Iraqi occupation, or they would just refuse any compromise on the issue. The american public want us out of Iraq, and the democrats would be lauded as heroes for standing up to a maniacal president.- 98percentcogdis, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2All you have to do is find out who likes to rub elbows with AIPAC. Who thinks they are the IN goyum. I don't know why you think it's all the "maniacal president" I wish that people would see that it doesn't matter who's from what party. Take Nancy Pelosi for example, she's an
AIPAC groupie!
- 98percentcogdis, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2All you have to do is find out who likes to rub elbows with AIPAC. Who thinks they are the IN goyum. I don't know why you think it's all the "maniacal president" I wish that people would see that it doesn't matter who's from what party. Take Nancy Pelosi for example, she's an
- sibhod, on 12/19/2007, -1/+13No no no no. If the democrats holding the majority would wield that power to refuse to vote for any bill that doesn't contain a deadline, Bush would have to capitulate. If Bush is allowed to say he'll veto any bill that contains timetables, the democrats should say they will vote down any bill that DOESN'T contain timetables.
- lharrod, on 12/19/2007, -1/+5Damn, I never believed in the two-party system, but damn, Dems are blowing it now more than ever. wtf?? I really REALLY hope we're in for some change with our next Prez, whoever he or she may be.
- falstaff, on 12/19/2007, -3/+8I like people who think the Democrats are somehow better than Republicans. They make me laugh.
But seriously, if the Dems win the White House next year, most young Democrats will instantly become Republican. It's not an ideological thing, it's just an anti-establishment thing. Dems become the establishment, and then they become the "bad people." No, the Democrats are not the magic cure to all the evil the Republicans have caused. Start paying attention through more than one election cycle and all this starts to make more sense. "Bu- bu- bu-...Impeachment!" No. Sorry. Politics is a machine, and it really doesn't care what you want.
- alvinrod, on 12/19/2007, -10/+6Probably because at the time I'm reading the article, it has only 71 diggs, likely not enough for it to be on the front page.
- Draxius, on 12/19/2007, -1/+33Some version of this needs to make it to the front page. I really didn't think passing the bill in the middle of the night would trick people enough not to see, hopefully I am right....
- jwolcott, on 12/19/2007, -12/+1@PATSCRU: Great point!
---------------
People that call the passing of this spending bill cowardly on the democrats end are completely clueless when it comes to the legislative branch. 1) The democrats are opposed to this bill, with 90% of dems in favor of a spending bill with withdrawal dates. 2) The number of republicans crossing party lines for a withdrawal spending bill can be counted on your hands. 3) Bush will veto any spending plan with strings attached. 4) Since no republicans are crossing party lines, there is no way for the dems to override the presidential veto with their RAZOR THIN CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITY. 5) They are forced to either pass a bill so basic military options like feeding the troops can continue, or hold a fillibuster which would put our troops in harm's way at some point or another.
STOP blaming democrats for a republican minority that is unwilling to break party lines to get our troops out by overriding Bush's vetos.
by PATSCRU
--------------- - LukasSmith, on 12/19/2007, -2/+290%? ahaha. thats wonderful. Killed the majority that the democrats held. Cowards? That 10% are heros. Thanks democrats for wising up to the fact you must fund this war. After all you eagerly jumped up to fund the initial war spending. Yes you democrats respected bush trusted Bush sooo much that you made a mistake? ahahah. I remember those days. Democrats still hated Bush. Now they want me to believe that they made a mistake? pff. But really what can you expect from politicians who are Americans? Americans weep about government debt and stay mute about the debt the American people has piled up with thier credit society.Of course they can just go bankrupt like millions do each year.Gee I wonder where senators get thier endless spending notions. When oh when will American gov go bankrupt? Their credit cards are maxed! Welcome To America.
- jwolcott, on 12/19/2007, -12/+1@PATSCRU: Great point!
- swaddict, on 12/19/2007, -3/+45Start writing to Pelosi and Reid and demand an explanation if they expect to have democrats in power in 08
- Tilon, on 12/19/2007, -2/+6lmao. Like Pelosi and Reid's top loyalties are to the Democratic Front Organization.
It's going to take a while for Americans to fully wake up, unfortunately.- Pherdnut, on 12/19/2007, -2/+1To what? Your cynicism?
- Tilon, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3Got a problem with it?
- Pherdnut, on 12/19/2007, -2/+1To what? Your cynicism?
- Homerr, on 12/19/2007, -1/+4Pelosi: http://speaker.house.gov/contact/
Reid: http://reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm
Get to it people...- Pherdnut, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1done.
- jwolcott, on 12/19/2007, -10/+2@PATSCRU: Great point!
---------------
People that call the passing of this spending bill cowardly on the democrats end are completely clueless when it comes to the legislative branch. 1) The democrats are opposed to this bill, with 90% of dems in favor of a spending bill with withdrawal dates. 2) The number of republicans crossing party lines for a withdrawal spending bill can be counted on your hands. 3) Bush will veto any spending plan with strings attached. 4) Since no republicans are crossing party lines, there is no way for the dems to override the presidential veto with their RAZOR THIN CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITY. 5) They are forced to either pass a bill so basic military options like feeding the troops can continue, or hold a fillibuster which would put our troops in harm's way at some point or another.
STOP blaming democrats for a republican minority that is unwilling to break party lines to get our troops out by overriding Bush's vetos.
by PATSCRU
---------------- ZenMojo, on 12/19/2007, -1/+1How dare you make the Republicans look even worse than they already do? Stop taking away every excuse Republicans have to vote Republican in the face of all logic!
- stephant, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Don't start whining about it now, you just look pathetic. Many people on digg and in the media suggested that Democrats couldn't or wouldn't follow through with any of their campaign promises but you chose to buy into it all anyway. You talk about Republicans being mind numbed robots? Seriously, give me a break. However, Democrats have been successful in "feeling" the right way about the war. Sure they haven't done anything about it but that's not really the criteria is it?
- Tilon, on 12/19/2007, -2/+6lmao. Like Pelosi and Reid's top loyalties are to the Democratic Front Organization.
- Shigglyboo, on 12/19/2007, -5/+154republicans.... democrats.... two heads of the same monster. the dollar amounts I keep hearing about our government spending... it's just STUPID money. I think some kindergarten kids could solve the worlds problems with this amount of money. I think read somewhere that the US military budget for 1 year could feed, house, and build infrastructure for the entire planet. sure, call me a commie. this is just crazy. our government is out of control. the spending is out of control. operation Iraqi freedom is OUT OF CONTROL!
oh well, back to work, gotta earn my 25 thousand this year so I can afford to have a place to live and food to eat, while we spend billions to blow up ***** and rebuild *****....- jwolcott, on 12/19/2007, -14/+2@PATSCRU: Great point!
---------------
People that call the passing of this spending bill cowardly on the democrats end are completely clueless when it comes to the legislative branch. 1) The democrats are opposed to this bill, with 90% of dems in favor of a spending bill with withdrawal dates. 2) The number of republicans crossing party lines for a withdrawal spending bill can be counted on your hands. 3) Bush will veto any spending plan with strings attached. 4) Since no republicans are crossing party lines, there is no way for the dems to override the presidential veto with their RAZOR THIN CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITY. 5) They are forced to either pass a bill so basic military options like feeding the troops can continue, or hold a fillibuster which would put our troops in harm's way at some point or another.
STOP blaming democrats for a republican minority that is unwilling to break party lines to get our troops out by overriding Bush's vetos.
by PATSCRU
---------------- umstbkddng, on 12/19/2007, -1/+8Troops wouldn't be in harm's way if they WEREN'T IN IRAQ. That's the whole point, genius...To take away the purse strings so Bush has no choice but to bring them home.
The administration can be blamed for bad handling of the war, but I put squarely on Harry Reid and Pelosi's shoulders every single military death since the Democrats took control of congress.- ZenMojo, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Democrats passed a bill through the Senate AND the House recently with a March 2008 withdrawal attached to it. Bush vetoed it.
The only obstruction to Bush is not funding the government at all. This is the nation's biggest game of chicken.- locojones, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3Then defund the government and let it sit if that's what it takes.
- ZenMojo, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Democrats passed a bill through the Senate AND the House recently with a March 2008 withdrawal attached to it. Bush vetoed it.
- scubasteve377, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Stop spamming this *****. You already got ***** owned the first time you posted it.
- umstbkddng, on 12/19/2007, -1/+8Troops wouldn't be in harm's way if they WEREN'T IN IRAQ. That's the whole point, genius...To take away the purse strings so Bush has no choice but to bring them home.
- LukasSmith, on 12/19/2007, -8/+4Thanks democrats for wising up to the fact you must fund this war. After all you eagerly jumped up to provide initial war spending. Yes you democrats respected bush trusted Bush sooo much that you made a mistake? ahahah. I remember those days. Democrats still hated Bush. Now they want me to believe that they made a mistake? pff. But really what can you expect from politicians who are Americans? Americans weep about government debt and stay mute about the debt the American people has piled up with thier credit society. Gee I wonder where senators get thier endless spending notions. Welcome To America.
- myklee, on 12/19/2007, -1/+8I used my credit to donate to the Ron Paul Revolution.
- klipseracer, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2@LukasSmith You have no idea what your talking about. Digg is such a bad place to find new ideas about any political topic.
Whats worse than the ordeal we're going through now? People who skew and polute this website with nonsense. The blind are leading the blind people. - SlimFastForYou, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2TRAITORS! At least 70% of our Senate, for shame!
- AntonLee, on 12/20/2007, -0/+0hence why you choose someone out of the box. . . Ron Paul was against this war since the beginning, he wants to FIX our money, our debt, our staging wars every few years. It's not RED TEAM BLUE TEAM anymore, it's the STATE versus YOU. . . and Ron Paul is the only one libertarian enough to see that, and END it
- jwolcott, on 12/19/2007, -14/+2@PATSCRU: Great point!
- Happy_Phantom, on 12/19/2007, -46/+8We are winning the war in Iraq. That is why the Democrats have fallen silent and into line.
Petraeus is a military genius. Bush has found his Grant.- JimmySpaza, on 12/19/2007, -8/+5And yet the Dems keep showing up to press conferences with Pelosi and Reid. Not quite the figureheads they need to instill faith and support.
- Sunuva, on 12/19/2007, -1/+10Happy Phantom, How do you define winning these days? The administration has changed it's mission every time it encounters new problems so this 'war' keeps going on and on. Have we not accomplished all the previous missions? What is the mission now anyways?
- Happy_Phantom, on 12/19/2007, -4/+2Petraeus' strategy has been to have our troops base among the Sunnis and win their confidence that we won't just sweep in destroying their homes, only to abruptly leave soon after, leaving them to the terrorists mercies. Similarly, in Baghdad, to occupy buffer zones between Sunni and Shia neighborhoods to prevent sectarian cleansing and violence.
The Surge has accomplished these objectives and American casualties have fallen from the hundreds of wounded per month to less than 50 last month.- rhodydog, on 12/19/2007, -0/+450 deaths is a lot of ruined families for no good reason.
- kreneskyp, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2military genius? you mean we shouldn't have been destroying their homes and kidnapping their men in the middle of the night then leave them defenseless to the insurgents? wow thanks cause i never would have figured that part out on my own.
- firejack007, on 12/20/2007, -3/+2It's called adapting to each situation and overcoming. Something that you guys that would've run in the sight of the least resistance don't understand.
- Happy_Phantom, on 12/19/2007, -4/+2Petraeus' strategy has been to have our troops base among the Sunnis and win their confidence that we won't just sweep in destroying their homes, only to abruptly leave soon after, leaving them to the terrorists mercies. Similarly, in Baghdad, to occupy buffer zones between Sunni and Shia neighborhoods to prevent sectarian cleansing and violence.
- HoboMaster, on 12/19/2007, -2/+7I'm not even going to address the current issue in your post, I'll just say this:
If you think Grant was a military genius, you're an idiot. If it weren't for a 10-to-1 manpower advantage, Grant wouldn't have had a chance. The only thing he knew how to do is throw overwhelming numbers at the Confederates. Look at the enormous casualty difference in the battles.- Happy_Phantom, on 12/19/2007, -3/+1However we differ on Grant's genius, or lack there of, my analogy stands. Bush went through a series of generals that failed to bring the insurgents to the table, and the terrorists to their knees, until Petraeus was given the reigns.
- oldhick, on 12/19/2007, -0/+4Grant was not a genius and there is little to know evidence Petraeus is either. Patraeous simply was the lucky one to receive additional troops, the "surge". All the previous Generals have requested additional forces and stipulated that we were undermanned. But Bush and cronies continue to meddle with strategies and prevent the Generals themselves from executing their best plans.
- Happy_Phantom, on 12/19/2007, -3/+1You are mistaken. There had been previous surges; the Democrats themselves used this fact as political ammo against the surge of Petraeus, since these previous surges failed. The counter insurgency strategy is different. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians and insurgents alike has ceased. There are no more pointless sweeps and retreats through insurgent territory. The military has won over the Sunni tribes and Shia militias, not with violence, but with confidence-gaining "boots on the ground" security measures. This is an ingenious turn of events as brilliant as any battlefield maneuver. Petraeus is, in fact, a genius.
- oldhick, on 12/19/2007, -0/+4Grant was not a genius and there is little to know evidence Petraeus is either. Patraeous simply was the lucky one to receive additional troops, the "surge". All the previous Generals have requested additional forces and stipulated that we were undermanned. But Bush and cronies continue to meddle with strategies and prevent the Generals themselves from executing their best plans.
- Happy_Phantom, on 12/19/2007, -3/+1However we differ on Grant's genius, or lack there of, my analogy stands. Bush went through a series of generals that failed to bring the insurgents to the table, and the terrorists to their knees, until Petraeus was given the reigns.
- Pherdnut, on 12/19/2007, -2/+1Even if the war was going swimmingly, it's not a good day for Bush and friends.
- phoofy, on 12/19/2007, -1/+3I was looking for /sarcasm at the end there.
- SilentSpyder, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4My brother was in Iraq. The new strategy is basically paying them off to help us. He was in one of the meetings.
- kreneskyp, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2exactly. the same thing happened in vietnam. we were supplying the vietnam regulars and they would just give half the stuff to the VC. We're supplying the iraqis and sooner or later they will turn on us or they will just be secretly working against us.
- Encephalon1, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1And Digg has found its idiot.
- dngermouse, on 12/19/2007, -7/+15That'll help Oil sales for the next month
the Bush family is popping champagne somewhere right about now - alvinrod, on 12/19/2007, -7/+126Didn't we elect the Democrats in 2006 to put a stop to this crap? What the hell is going on in DC right now?
- userperson, on 12/19/2007, -0/+13>>What the hell is going on in DC right now?
People paying off favors with your money. i.e. it's Wednesday.
If you're going to continue to vote and expect quantifiable results for things you actual care about, prepare to be disappointed.- enginbeering, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1But don't stop voting.
- userperson, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Why not?
Voting is violence. Do 'x' or I will shoot you. Just because you elect another guy; or they say do 'y' or I will shoot you, doesn't help all that much.
If it does show me?
I'd love to vote if it would actual fix things. kudos to you, as you want/wish to make things better though.
- userperson, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Why not?
- enginbeering, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1But don't stop voting.
- tierpinho, on 12/19/2007, -0/+20they are the same party, wake up! they want us to go into debt so the elite can swoop in and take the middle classes assets and isolate the poor!
- SilentSpyder, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1My guy voted against it (Menendez-NJ). It's these Democrats that get elected in primarily red states that vote so they can keep their job come the next election.
- tgc1, on 12/20/2007, -1/+5The headline should read "Corrupt Democrat Senate approves $70 billion War Fund" -- which is after all what all those scum bags are in the Senate. America, kick the bums out!
- Nocturnalis, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Yeah we did and it's called a 2/3rd's vote. Meaning even though the Democrats have the majority of the house they need two / thirds of the total reps in the house to agree with them for anything to go the Democratic way. People seem to keep forgetting this. 51% of the house means *****. Hell even 65% of the house means *****. 66.66%+ to agree with anything is the only way things get passed. Also Democrats have been trying their assess off to not agree to funds without a timetable that 66% of the house could not agree on.
You can continue to think that just b/c the Dems are the majority they can do anything they want but they can't they still do not have enough of the majority to fully control the house.
- userperson, on 12/19/2007, -0/+13>>What the hell is going on in DC right now?
- entrophize, on 12/19/2007, -2/+34What a ***** mess.
- Tilon, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1^ ^ ^
Only one here who actually knows what's going on
- Tilon, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1^ ^ ^
- zacharytelschow, on 12/19/2007, -4/+31Spineless democrats. Republicans are no better. Partisan politics will lead us nowhere.
- Tilon, on 12/19/2007, -2/+2If politics were 'partisan' don't you think the Dems and Republicans would be like, you know...fighting?
- rarson, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1"The politics of failure have failed. We need to make them work again."
- ravamp3, on 12/19/2007, -6/+7370 Billion would really help this country out.. infrastructure, education, healthcare.. it would make a noticeable difference. However 70 Billion don't do ***** in Iraq.
- spyd3rweb, on 12/19/2007, -0/+11With the way contractors operate here, $70billion would be lucky to buy us a couple of hammers.
- leahcim, on 12/19/2007, -1/+570 billion wouldn't do ***** here either.
- ferrariman60, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3Yeah, but so long as we're throwing money into a pit, it may as well be our own pit, right?
- rarson, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2ferrariman makes a good point (and I love Ferraris). At least if we're throwing money at contractors here in the states, the money is staying in our economy.
- rarson, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3Any time you get contractors working for the government, you automatically get the lowest quality work at the highest prices. Government contracts ALWAYS come in over budget. I say this from watching government contractors work when I was in the Navy. It was always the buddy of someone who "made the lowest bid" (it wasn't always the lowest bid), and for whatever reasons, their bid amount wasn't enough to finish the job. The government just throws more money at it when the contractors ask.
- leahcim, on 12/19/2007, -1/+570 billion wouldn't do ***** here either.
- superkendall, on 12/19/2007, -8/+3Except help a nation full of people that really need it more than America does.
Don't you think Americans have been "helped" enough by our government already?- rhodydog, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2Even if you don't want to spend it in government, at least give the 70 billion back to the tax payer.
- rarson, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Or just don't take it away from them in the first place.
- alterImperson, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Are you stupid?
- mikesocal, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5its not their money. America isn't a charity organization. I don't pay taxes and work at my job to help people half way around the world.
- hinchb, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1basically this.
- rhodydog, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2Even if you don't want to spend it in government, at least give the 70 billion back to the tax payer.
- Aelbric, on 12/19/2007, -2/+4$70B is less than 3% of the total budget. There's more waste than that in the Department of Education alone.
- pintomp3, on 12/20/2007, -2/+4if $70B is so little, why were republicans so vehemently opposed to spending half that on giving children health care?
- firejack007, on 12/20/2007, -6/+2because it wasn't going to children's health care. You do anything except read the headlines or listen to the liberal drive by media?
- scubasteve377, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Oh, right, the Tax the Poor and Lower-Middle Class So We Can Put Their Children on a Government-Run HMO Act of 2007, or 'SCHIP' for shortsies.
"But wait, they said it was going to be paid for with a tax on cigarettes!" And what demographic smokes the most cigarettes, again? Oh, right, poor and lower-middle class. Regressive taxation to fund big-government corporatism FTW! ...apparently.
"My God, won't somebody please think of the children??????!!"
- pintomp3, on 12/20/2007, -2/+4if $70B is so little, why were republicans so vehemently opposed to spending half that on giving children health care?
- FluffyWolf, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3$70 Billion is about the size of the GNP of Iraq, so $70 billion could probably do some good in Iraq too. But these money are of course not meant to be used to restore Iraq, so they are out of luck as usual.
- matador3, on 12/20/2007, -0/+6You're missing the fact that it's $70 billion we don't have.
- spyd3rweb, on 12/19/2007, -0/+11With the way contractors operate here, $70billion would be lucky to buy us a couple of hammers.
- cornswalled, on 12/19/2007, -11/+5Since they voted for the law, I have to admit they seem a lot LESS cowardly now.
- kreneskyp, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1because they are the ones fighting? or because they like a challenge getting reelected?
- galeninjapan, on 12/19/2007, -3/+63Isnt there any presidential candidate that is making it a top priority to leave iraq and didnt vote for the war in the first place?
- alsahir, on 12/19/2007, -3/+17I don't know about Ron Paul, but I do believe that Kucinich voted against and this has always been one of his top priorities. Now, if you want a candidate that actually has a chance of getting the nomination that meets those requirements, I think the answer is no.
- userperson, on 12/19/2007, -4/+16Paul voted against it too. The Constitution's he's big thing. If congress didn't declare war, he's not part of it. He's generally anti-war anyway.
- glasnostic, on 12/19/2007, -13/+2if the constitution is his big thing, then why does he want to limit your ability to use the constitution to defend your rights?
- pintomp3, on 12/20/2007, -6/+3it's his big thing, except when it comes to separation of church and state:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
http://www.irregulartimes.com/ronpaulseparation.ht ...
- glasnostic, on 12/19/2007, -8/+4OBAMA
- userperson, on 12/19/2007, -0/+5'cause he'll withdraw the troops ... 'um someday ... maybe if the conditions are right. Otherwise taking them away from the war zone would be too dangerous ?!?
- rarson, on 12/20/2007, -0/+6Obama wants to take troops out of Iraq and put them in Pakistan. Which would make a difference of... about... *****-all.
- Gemfinder, on 12/20/2007, -1/+5The answer is "No" only if you listen to the mainstream media. (MSM is a good thing...keeps joints healthy...will not use those letters in reference to the media conglomerate...)
Who do you like? Who do you agree with? Support 'em. ***** the polls.- rarson, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4"Who do you like? Who do you agree with? Support 'em. ***** the polls."
Quoted for the goddamn truth. That is what democracy is all about. ***** voting for a "winner."
- rarson, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4"Who do you like? Who do you agree with? Support 'em. ***** the polls."
- userperson, on 12/19/2007, -4/+16Paul voted against it too. The Constitution's he's big thing. If congress didn't declare war, he's not part of it. He's generally anti-war anyway.
- Pebcak, on 12/19/2007, -4/+37Ron Paul never voted to go to war, and he has promised to withdraw all of our troops as soon as possible after becoming elected.
- FredFredrickson, on 12/19/2007, -7/+2As soon as possible... meaning what? You think we should just take a Republican's word for it?
- userperson, on 12/19/2007, -0/+4... as long as you don't take any another politician's word you'll be doing just fine.
- rarson, on 12/20/2007, -0/+6In Glenn Beck's interview, I noticed he used the word "overnight." It's clear he wants to get them out ASAP. There's nothing wrong with true Republicans (as there is nothing wrong with true Democrats like Kucinich, whom I highly support despite the fact that I'm a conservative Republican), but they're so few and far between that some people apparently don't recognize them when they make themselves known.
- FredFredrickson, on 12/19/2007, -7/+2As soon as possible... meaning what? You think we should just take a Republican's word for it?
- FluffyWolf, on 12/19/2007, -1/+8I see what you did there...
- Jordan117, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings."
--Barack Obama, 4 months before the war - Encephalon1, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1LOL. Yeah. Obama.
- alsahir, on 12/19/2007, -3/+17I don't know about Ron Paul, but I do believe that Kucinich voted against and this has always been one of his top priorities. Now, if you want a candidate that actually has a chance of getting the nomination that meets those requirements, I think the answer is no.
- roxb0x, on 12/19/2007, -28/+93RonPaul2008.com
- pattyman5000, on 12/19/2007, -8/+8http://www.dennis4president.com/home/
- Tilon, on 12/19/2007, -7/+5Ban Handguns, Kucinich 08!
Down with Socialism and its inevitable transfer of power to government.- spyd3rweb, on 12/19/2007, -3/+4Down with government healthcare.
- pintomp3, on 12/20/2007, -3/+2end separation of church and state, Ron Paul '08!
- thadizzle, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1It's funny how you say "Ban handguns" and "Down with Socialism" in the same post. You may wanna read the Constitution. RON PAUL 2008!!!
- Tilon, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3Uhm, apparently you guys are unaware the Kucinich wants to ban handguns. That was sarcasm. I dislike Kucinich for his Socialist beliefs, even if he is an honest guy.
(Meaning, I don't want to get rid of guns) - rarson, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4Jesus Christ. Some people really don't get sarcasm. Dennis is an excellent candidate, but if it weren't for the fact that I don't think he alone would be able to ban handguns (as president), I wouldn't encourage people to support him (I don't support him only because I'm Republican and I support Ron Paul).
And pintomp3, you're not funny. Ron Paul is religious, yes, but just like the abortion issue, he knows that his PERSONAL PREFERENCES have no place in federal government matters. I capitalize those words because it's readily apparent that a lot of people do not understand that their opinions are only personal preferences and not matters of national importance. Like abortion. There really is absolutely no reason why we should have a national law governing abortion. If you think I'm wrong, then I'd like to hear why you think your state legislature is not capable of making that decision for itself.- Tilon, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5The problem is that Socialist beliefs are being perpetuated even by the honest people in our system, because it's all about the end rather than the means, cutting corners, stepping stones, getting away with whatever you can, etc, etc.
It seems that the cabal that mostly runs government has figured out that Constitutionalist systems only really work 'in theory' and that in actuality they can do whatever the Hell they want now since the populace is domesticated.
They think. It's a fallacy though, I think. People are waking up already and once things go to Hell they'll be looking for blood where previously they were laughing.
Socialist forms of planned society and control are too susceptible to hijacking since it relies on deceiving the public. Kucinich is a great guy, but he needs to understand the role of Government a bit better. - rarson, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Oh, I definitely agree, which is why I support Paul first and foremost. But Kucinich is the candidate closest to being the next-best thing.
- Tilon, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5The problem is that Socialist beliefs are being perpetuated even by the honest people in our system, because it's all about the end rather than the means, cutting corners, stepping stones, getting away with whatever you can, etc, etc.
- thadizzle, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4Kucinich is a good guy, no doubt...But his sympathy for illegal aliens and socialist ways work against him. That's why I'm voting for Ron Paul!
- xcyber347, on 12/20/2007, -0/+0Ya, it's horrible for a person to have sympathy for others who have the misfortune of being born in a bad place and want to improve the lives of themselves and their families. It's also terrible that this person has compassion for the weak in society and wants to use government to help them. Certainly, libertarians like Ron Paul who feel no responsibility to help their fellow human beings are better people that can improve society. I know where to cast my vote.
- Tilon, on 12/19/2007, -7/+5Ban Handguns, Kucinich 08!
- KenRay, on 12/19/2007, -15/+1Vote Ru Paul
- rarson, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4You are so witty, I've never heard that one before...
- KenRay, on 12/20/2007, -1/+0I'm just so damn sick of seeing Ron Paul everywhere I look. On all the Digg comments, plastic cups in the fences over the highways, in my mail, in my email, on pieces of cardboard stuck in the ground on freeway exits. It only proves the fact that repetitious spam is the only way to advertise products in a "familiar feeling" way, but now I just associate that familiar feeling to being pissed off. True my comment wasn't witty but neither is his advertising.
- rarson, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1If your so sick of him, then I suggest you stop thinking about him and mentioning him.
- KenRay, on 12/20/2007, -1/+0I'm just so damn sick of seeing Ron Paul everywhere I look. On all the Digg comments, plastic cups in the fences over the highways, in my mail, in my email, on pieces of cardboard stuck in the ground on freeway exits. It only proves the fact that repetitious spam is the only way to advertise products in a "familiar feeling" way, but now I just associate that familiar feeling to being pissed off. True my comment wasn't witty but neither is his advertising.
- rarson, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4You are so witty, I've never heard that one before...
- pattyman5000, on 12/19/2007, -8/+8http://www.dennis4president.com/home/
- Metalmoon, on 12/19/2007, -4/+34what a bunch of corrupt pieces of *****. i'm sure reid and pelosi will be getting their cut of the blood money.
- userperson, on 12/19/2007, -0/+7They're politicians ... all the money they get is 'bloody' -- If we don't turn it over we get bloody.
- Aelbric, on 12/19/2007, -7/+36 Mandatory Spending, at $1.412 trillion in FY 2006, is over half of the U.S. Federal Budget. The largest mandatory spending programs are Social Security and Medicare, as follows:
* Social Security - $544 billion
* Medicare - $325 billion
* Medicaid - $186 billion
* All other mandatory programs - $357 billion. These programs include Food Stamps, Unemployment Compensation, Child Nutrition, Child Tax Credits, Supplemental Security for the blind and disabled, Student Loans, and Retirement / Disability programs for Civil Servants, the Coast Guard and the Military
Call me when there is outrage about this.
Source: http://useconomy.about.com/od/fy2008budget/p/2008_ ...- URnotheonly1, on 12/19/2007, -2/+545 trillion over the next 75 years
- superkendall, on 12/19/2007, -0/+4That's assuming they pay out. At some point the SS payments will be reduced to nothing except for the very most needy. Which is probably how it should be, it's just a shame that we are all mailed these fictional documents every year that describe how much we would get on retirement. Some people might actually believe them and grow to depend on them.
- norman619, on 12/19/2007, -2/+1No *****. War shmore. We are on our way to the poor house people!
- lhbaker, on 12/19/2007, -3/+6Yeah, who needs these programs. We could be spending that money to make ourselves feel safer.
- Aelbric, on 12/19/2007, -3/+7You are missing the point.
We currently pay $500 Billion every year in Medicare and Medicaid. Let that sink in for a second. That means the burden for these programs is ~$1700 per living person in the country every year. Divide this among the 45M people without healthcare. You get $11,000 per person per year for nothing but healthcare. That is more than I pay, with insurance premiums, deductibles, and co-pays for a family of 3. That's under the current budget.
Now tell me where that money goes, and tell me that we need more. While you're at it, tell me that letting the federal government manage more of your money is a good idea.- wootup, on 12/20/2007, -2/+4Typical ignorant market evangelism. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American _health_care_systems_compared
"The U.S. government spends more per capita on health care than the government does in Canada. In 2004, the government of Canada spent $2,120 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government spent $2,724.
However, U.S. government spending covers less than half of all health care costs. Private spending for health care is also far greater in the U.S. than in Canada. In Canada, an average of $917 was spent annually by individuals or private insurance companies for health care, including dental, eye care, and drugs. In the U.S., this number is $3,372. In 2004, health care consumed 15.4% of U.S. annual GDP. In Canada, only 9.8% of GDP was spent on health care."
Factually speaking, socialist health care is far more efficient and cost-effective than for-profit health care. Further, simply as a moral stance, the idea that health care - and thus life - should be a commodity to be bought and sold is utterly outrageous.- scubasteve377, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2Nobody is arguing for the current US health care system. It sucks ass, we know. It has steadily gone to ***** as the government has gotten more and more involved. You're delusional if you think that the current system is anywhere close to a free market system. What you're seeing now is corporatism, not capitalism. Look it up if you don't know the difference.
- wootup, on 12/20/2007, -2/+4Typical ignorant market evangelism. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American _health_care_systems_compared
- Aelbric, on 12/19/2007, -3/+7You are missing the point.
- alterImperson, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3My god. The reason these programs are hemorrhaging money is because they've been neglected for quite some time now. If any executive time were to be spent on these programs, budget could be cut significantly, dependence down significantly, and we could raise the standard of life indefinitely. I refuse to believe that $544 Billion will reach the American public through Social Security. It's all mismanaged, the entire budget is out of control, military and civil spending.
- URnotheonly1, on 12/19/2007, -2/+545 trillion over the next 75 years
- skellener, on 12/19/2007, -23/+2670 Billion to the war and no healthcare for U.S. Citizens is madness.
- URnotheonly1, on 12/19/2007, -9/+23get your own health care, I do
- AntBing, on 12/19/2007, -8/+10Right on. Self responsibility needs to make a big comeback. Fight for less government in our lives, not more.
- userperson, on 12/19/2007, -3/+2I agree,
... but the people who have been forced into Social Security may feel somewhat different. Children in gov't schools have been taught to believe there is a place for such things. While evil, you have to admire the beauty/cleverness of it.
- userperson, on 12/19/2007, -3/+2I agree,
- pintomp3, on 12/20/2007, -1/+3tell that to the iraqis:
http://www.gadling.com/media/2007/07/healthcarewor ...
we pay to give universal health care in iraq and afghanistan.- firejack007, on 12/20/2007, -3/+1They don't have the ability to take care of themselves as much as we do. You dare compare what an American has compared to those people? What planet are you from?
- AntBing, on 12/19/2007, -8/+10Right on. Self responsibility needs to make a big comeback. Fight for less government in our lives, not more.
- DerekD1215, on 12/19/2007, -9/+15No healthcare!?!?!? $325 bil. + $186 bil. = $511 bil. for healthcare. Why not take responsibility for your own life and quit trying to leech of people like me.
- FredFredrickson, on 12/19/2007, -8/+3Someone's got to take the ***** jobs at some point, Derek. What's a dollar out of your pocket?
- DerekD1215, on 12/19/2007, -6/+6Alot actually. I work 60-80 hrs a week at a blue collar job to support my family. How about you?
- userperson, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1You got dugg down for working too hard, take a break man.
- userperson, on 12/19/2007, -6/+6>>What's a dollar out of your pocket?
His!
If he wants to help other people out, no one is stopping him, just as no one is stopping you.
In the meantime, he's still obligated to take care of his, don't ask him to be a 'slave' in addition.- userperson, on 12/19/2007, -2/+3One dollar taken by force is wrong,
but this is not just a dollar; it's dollar, then another dollar, then another dollar, etc. etc.
- userperson, on 12/19/2007, -2/+3One dollar taken by force is wrong,
- DerekD1215, on 12/19/2007, -6/+6Alot actually. I work 60-80 hrs a week at a blue collar job to support my family. How about you?
- pintomp3, on 12/20/2007, -3/+6do you pay for your own roads, police and fire protection? why should i have to pay for those things for you?
- userperson, on 12/20/2007, -1/+3He never said you should.
- matador3, on 12/20/2007, -1/+3Do Federal taxes pay for those things? Nope, except for interstates (gas tax) which they shouldn't.
- FredFredrickson, on 12/19/2007, -8/+3Someone's got to take the ***** jobs at some point, Derek. What's a dollar out of your pocket?
- jaymzdean, on 12/19/2007, -2/+9The pharmaceutical companies have got you fighting amongst yourselves.
LOL - tgc1, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Nope, thats' corruption.
- lumin8or, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2Madness? This is AMERICA!!
- URnotheonly1, on 12/19/2007, -9/+23get your own health care, I do
- PATSCRU, on 12/19/2007, -18/+42People that call the passing of this spending bill cowardly on the democrats end are completely clueless when it comes to the legislative branch. 1) The democrats are opposed to this bill, with 90% of dems in favor of a spending bill with withdrawal dates. 2) The number of republicans crossing party lines for a withdrawal spending bill can be counted on your hands. 3) Bush will veto any spending plan with strings attached. 4) Since no republicans are crossing party lines, there is no way for the dems to override the presidential veto with their RAZOR THIN CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITY. 5) They are forced to either pass a bill so basic military options like feeding the troops can continue, or hold a fillibuster which would put our troops in harm's way at some point or another.
STOP blaming democrats for a republican minority that is unwilling to break party lines to get our troops out by overriding Bush's vetos.- 01l0, on 12/19/2007, -6/+14This is digg, fine points like "how the government works" will be completely lost in favor of hyperbole. DEMOCRAT COWARDS!!!!11
- userperson, on 12/19/2007, -1/+4Gov't DOESN'T work.
- pintomp3, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1enron does?
- userperson, on 12/20/2007, -1/+3Only if they have someone to set up rules and then give them loopholes so they can game the system -- i.e. Gov't.
- pintomp3, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1enron does?
- userperson, on 12/19/2007, -1/+4Gov't DOESN'T work.
- mrjit, on 12/19/2007, -3/+17If our troops can't be fed, I assume that would mean they'd have to return home.
- tidu, on 12/19/2007, -0/+7Don't hold your breath...
- userperson, on 12/19/2007, -1/+2You think it can realistically get to that point?
"I can understand you being against the war, but these evil people don't support the troops!" {GASPS of SHOCK!}
"Those who don't provide them with food, bullets, bombs, and money to burn so that they can keep warm, are no better than the evil tarrorists!"
Pleased if I am to be proven wrong.
- alsahir, on 12/19/2007, -0/+101l0 has a point. By the way, if we wish to discuss technical points of government, neither party has a majority in the Senate. Neither even has more than the other. What we have is a coalition government. There are 49 Dems and 49 Rep. and 2 Ind. The 2 Independent guys are both former Democrats, and so they side with the Dems and so the Dems have control, but they don't actually have a majority of seats, they have a majority voting bloc. This is much like a microcosm of several foreign governments with multiple parties that have to form coalitions to form a government at all.
- superkendall, on 12/19/2007, -1/+2Actually Biden doesn't side with the Dems on Iraq, not at all. That's why he's (Ind) and not (D).
- 01l0, on 12/19/2007, -1/+4I think you mean Lieberman.
- alsahir, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1The point though is that he is an Independent who used to be a Dem and that the balance is not that of a true majority for the first time in a long time.
- superkendall, on 12/19/2007, -1/+2Actually Biden doesn't side with the Dems on Iraq, not at all. That's why he's (Ind) and not (D).
- blorc, on 12/19/2007, -2/+20You've got to be kidding me. It's not like they're going to let the troops starve over there if they don't get the money. They would simply have to withdraw them because of lack of funding. You can't possibly argue that it's not the fault of the Democrats. Of course, I'm not saying the Republicans aren't responsible for not being opposed to it, but that's not the point.
At least if Democrats stood their ground, they wouldn't look like they're not doing their job (which they aren't). If they stood their ground, and Bush veto'd the bill, and the Democrats couldn't muster up enough votes to override a veto, at least they would still have their integrity and simply be able to point out that more Democrats need to be elected so that they can counter his veto. They would actually have a case for people voting for them that way rather than people viewing them as the submitter does. - norman619, on 12/19/2007, -1/+15You sound like you actually think the democrats we placed in office really care. Cute.
- superkendall, on 12/19/2007, -6/+5Does anyone else think that the epic humanitarian disaster that is pulling out every troop from Iraq instantly would be hella bad?
Oh yeah, this is digg.- norman619, on 12/19/2007, -2/+3Welcome to the nut house. You get the straitjacket you wanted? Mine is a bit snug.
- sibhod, on 12/19/2007, -1/+3Like it's better now? We need help to Iraq with diplomacy, not bullets.
- userperson, on 12/19/2007, -1/+3How? Why?
Sorry we bothered you, we'll leave you alone now. Good Luck. Buh Bye.
Do you want/trust someone who came into your house and assaulted you, to stick around and clean up the mess?
- userperson, on 12/19/2007, -1/+3How? Why?
- userperson, on 12/19/2007, -0/+4Indeed, that would pull the rug out from under the current utopia.
- peep, on 12/19/2007, -1/+5They run out of money, they have to come home. He doesn't do that we hang him for treason and we bring them home. That is leverage. Without that level of threat hanging over his execution of the war he has no intention of modifying his policy in any way. The military is holding up there end but he isn't holding up his.There needs to be an intervention, but the ones who we sent to do it are doing business as usual instead. They need to close the whole government down. They won't, they don't really care. It's just a bargaining chip for money grabs elsewhere.
- mikemil828, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1If they run out of money, they won't be able to afford to bring them home, moving an army around ain't particularly cheap you know....
- scubasteve377, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1There is in the neighborhood of $100 billion in the pipeline already. That is more than enough to get everyone home safely.
- mikemil828, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1If they run out of money, they won't be able to afford to bring them home, moving an army around ain't particularly cheap you know....
- BEloftyIRONS, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2What they could do is keeping sending the same bill or similar bills with strings attached until the money runs out and can no longer keep the troops there. People say its dangerous to do that but no one will leave the troops there if there isn't enough money to keep them safe. But no has the guts to do that. They are to afraid being accused of "hating the troops". I know that plan sounds sounds harsh and it is, but if you cant get enough votes for a veto override stand up and grow a pair do what needs to be done.
- kreneskyp, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2they dont HAVE to pass anything. They could just hold the money hostage till bush gives in. You want to see big opposition? shutdown the government for a few weeks, months, etc
- bluesnowmonkey, on 12/20/2007, -1/+3Forget playing games with funding. Bush isn't king. Why doesn't Congress just pass a bill that says we will end operations in Iraq? The Democrats have a majority in both houses, right?
Answer: The Democrats want us in Iraq too. Bush is a scapegoat. The whole thing is a farce.
- 01l0, on 12/19/2007, -6/+14This is digg, fine points like "how the government works" will be completely lost in favor of hyperbole. DEMOCRAT COWARDS!!!!11
- vvortex3, on 12/19/2007, -11/+17WHAT THE *****!
- imelstevo, on 12/19/2007, -8/+3go president bush! sike!
- Gemfinder, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Dugg down for the sentiment *and* the misspelling.
- omnithought, on 12/19/2007, -3/+42Thus proving that there is no two party system. There is one party with two faces, and its goals are power and money.
- Tilon, on 12/19/2007, -1/+4They control the monetary system. They USE it to CONTROL. It's not their goal. That is folly.
They LEND money from the Fed AT INTEREST. That means when the government 'loans' a billion dollars, the American People owe interest on ONE BILLION DOLLARS.
It's nothing more than institutionalized control and tie-in into the grid.- spyd3rweb, on 12/19/2007, -0/+4I think you mean the Fed controls the money system, and the US government BORROWS money from the Fed at INTEREST.
- rarson, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1And yet, people still think it's "just a conspiracy theory."
- FredFredrickson, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1There are indeed two parties... they just share a lot more in common with each other than most of us care for.
- DerangedPenguin, on 12/20/2007, -1/+0Omnithought you are absolute(ly) correct care for a vodka screw driver?
- Tilon, on 12/19/2007, -1/+4They control the monetary system. They USE it to CONTROL. It's not their goal. That is folly.
- URnotheonly1, on 12/19/2007, -23/+15Bush is a bad ass, the guy gets the job done
- ravamp3, on 12/19/2007, -1/+5LEEROOOOY JENKINS!!!!111!!@#
- ravamp3, on 12/19/2007, -2/+1wtf?
- spyd3rweb, on 12/19/2007, -1/+2At least he has chicken.
- ravamp3, on 12/19/2007, -2/+1wtf?
- r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2He does? So you're saying that the Iraq war is over then, and they've found Osama bin Laden? Wow, how did this news not make the front page?!
- ravamp3, on 12/19/2007, -1/+5LEEROOOOY JENKINS!!!!111!!@#
- sfacets, on 12/19/2007, -14/+9American people - your "Democracy" never ceases to amaze. Power to the people my ass.
- ftx437, on 12/19/2007, -2/+1And there inlays the problem..
- omnithought, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3Therein lies...
hate to be a nazi...but that was a biggun
Oh, and I'm lettin' ya know so you'll know from now on...not to try to call you dumb.
Doesn't it suck that we now have to clarify and add disclaimers to prevent actual dumbasses from jumping to conclusions? ;)- norman619, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Since when does that stop the dumbasses?
- omnithought, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3Therein lies...
- leahcim, on 12/19/2007, -1/+1Like it or not, the democracy does work. You can't take the sample of responses on Digg as representative of the whole.
- ftx437, on 12/19/2007, -2/+1And there inlays the problem..
- JJ2K1, on 12/19/2007, -7/+20what did you expect? The president, congress, or senate do not run this country, international bankers do.
- jaymzdean, on 12/19/2007, -1/+9Getting dugg down?
There is a lot of denial in this country.
There's a certain percentage of people on this thread who will be diagnosed with cancer this year. When the doctor gives them the bad news, the patients will be looking for the doctor's Digg down button. - DerangedPenguin, on 12/20/2007, -6/+1Actually not the bankers but morons who vote for bigger morons. Reality check folks, I for one think Shira law is cool, sell the wife for a goat, after all she is a woman... unless you are gay of course in which case lose your head. This is a war against Islamofacism. Need to find out what that is just look up fascism on wikipedia. Then add a nice does of religious theocracy to complete the package. These people want nothing more than your life to be controlled by their religion. We can fight them "over there" or we can fight them here in our schools and places of worship, our shopping malls, airports and train stations. Need to remember what happened when the Democrats failed to fight them over there, come to NYC for New Years watch the ball drop and while you are here look at the big ***** hole in the ground on the Southwest side of Manhattan. If you think the U.S, Government made the hole they you should be listed as criminally insane and ineligible to vote
- rarson, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3America doesn't believe you. They don't believe in "conspiracy theories" (which remain theories despite the mountains of evidence that pile up to support the conspiracies).
- jaymzdean, on 12/19/2007, -1/+9Getting dugg down?
- removesstains, on 12/19/2007, -12/+10As an employee for a defense contractor, this is nothing but good news for me. They are securing my job. I’m against war but I have mouths to feed.
- redxninja, on 12/19/2007, -0/+12Lockheed Martin - We never forget who we're working for.
- JJ2K1, on 12/19/2007, -0/+7The highest bidder
- Akronos, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2http://www.usaspending.gov/fpds/tables.php?tabtype ...
$7,994,661,406
- jaymzdean, on 12/19/2007, -3/+4Someones got to suck Satan's *****, right?
- numb, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4RIP Bill Hicks
- redxninja, on 12/19/2007, -0/+12Lockheed Martin - We never forget who we're working for.
- vegask, on 12/19/2007, -1/+4Sheeesh, didn't we just overhaul the senate not to long ago?
- FredFredrickson, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3Yeah, we gave them a 1-2 seat majority. BFD.
- pintomp3, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1exactly, without enough to override a veto, it just turns into a deadlock with bush.
- rarson, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2Yes, because every Republican is the same, as is every Democrat.
If you people had taken the time to research your candidates, you might not have been stuck with two versions of the same thing.
- rarson, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2Yes, because every Republican is the same, as is every Democrat.
- pintomp3, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1exactly, without enough to override a veto, it just turns into a deadlock with bush.
- rarson, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2No, dumb Americans voted for Democrats assuming that they would be any different from Republicans. That's what they get for not bothering to educate themselves on their representatives.
- FredFredrickson, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3Yeah, we gave them a 1-2 seat majority. BFD.
- DarkReign16, on 12/19/2007, -3/+21God ***** damn it...
- scubasteve377, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Exactly.
- ftx437, on 12/19/2007, -9/+15Do Democrats want to win in Iraq? The superficial answer is, of course, yes. Scratch a little deeper. Do Democrats really want to win in Iraq? What benefit could they derive if we lost in Iraq?
A loss would humiliate the Bush administration and the Republican party. In fact, if they played it to perfection, they could get significant bumps in 2006 and 2008. As important as humiliating Republicans is in the short term, the big win for Democrats in an Iraqi loss is another decades-long period of Carteresque self-loathing.
Why? Because Victims Vote Democrat! Now there's a bumper sticker for you.
A Democratic politician's worst enemy is a confident, entrepreneurial, self-starting voter. Shatter the pride and patriotism of enough folks and Democrats will win back some Congressional seats, Gubernatorial mansions, and maybe, just maybe, the White House.
Do Democrats want to lose in Iraq? The answer is a calculated yes, and the reason is political gain. Disgusting.
***www.nopundit.com/archives/2005_11/21/000298.html***- buggles, on 12/19/2007, -2/+6that's why I can't stand democrats. It's *all* about the vote and what the headlines will say to get them that vote.
- 01l0, on 12/19/2007, -2/+4Thats why they are funding the war, right? Because they want to lose?
- Tilon, on 12/19/2007, -1/+2Anyone who believes that the two party Front organizations presented to the public are the end-all truth of the matter is the naive one.
- FredFredrickson, on 12/19/2007, -3/+9Anyone who believes we can "win" in Iraq doesn't understand what's going on simple as that.
- imakeart4u, on 12/19/2007, -2/+8win in iraq? win? there is no win.
- scubasteve377, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1Your commentary on the Democratic party is spot on, however, as others here have pointed out, there is no winning in Iraq. If you replace the words "to lose in Iraq" with " to keep the war in Iraq going until after the 2008 election", your comment becomes completely accurate. And, yes, it is disgusting.
- THE4IRON, on 12/19/2007, -3/+39"Supporting our troops" is such a damn joke. I'd like to slap anyone who says that. Nice crutch there...how exactly do you support our troops? Sending the people in charge gobs of money so they can put our troops in harms way with no real direction other than "get the bad guy". That's what I call support
WE ARE THE BAD GUYS.- FredFredrickson, on 12/19/2007, -2/+8You support them by attaching a magnetic ribbon to your gas-guzzling SUV, of course.
- brad3378, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2I couldn't resist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmsOIjzQ1V8
- userperson, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2I'm not a bad guy.
I didn't shoot at anyone.
I give my money for it, but that's just so they won't shoot me.
otherwise, right on!
- FredFredrickson, on 12/19/2007, -2/+8You support them by attaching a magnetic ribbon to your gas-guzzling SUV, of course.
- GeneralFailure0, on 12/19/2007, -4/+5I don't understand how allocating funds to a war we're already fighting is an indication of cowardice in any way. Would it be better if they blocked a budget bill which funds the war and starved our troops of resources? Whether you're for the war or against it, it's gonna keep costing money until it's over.
- Aelbric, on 12/19/2007, -4/+2Not to mention this is less than 5% of the overall budget. The number is just scary to Joe Sixpack. This is a classic case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
- userperson, on 12/19/2007, -1/+1So the war's no big deal?
or
The war's bad, and there's a bunch other badness too?- Aelbric, on 12/19/2007, -2/+2The net effect of the United States pulling out of Iraq would be vastly greater than $70B (5% of the budget). If you think being penny wise now is a good idea, you are not looking forward to th chaotic vacuum that would be opened up if we just pulled up stakes and came home. Making strategic decisions out of emotion is a patently horrendous idea. How do you think we got there in the first place?
- userperson, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4It's a mess! the U.S. military isn't going to make it that much better, just kill some people and tick others off.
What's to be gained? They've been there 4 years now! Are things significantly better? Since it's a question, then no.
>>How do you think we got there in the first place?
I'm not there, the U.S. military is. Nobody consulting me about that, as per how that occurred...
Some people in the White House and Pentagon decided that it was time to deploy that pet project they'd been working on since the last war over there. They found some data to fit their conclusion, and ran with it. Dreams come true, they can happen to you -- guns; as much money as you can steal; and a public that thinks violence is often acceptable and necessary helps too -- that's where you come in. Thanks for doing your part!
- userperson, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4It's a mess! the U.S. military isn't going to make it that much better, just kill some people and tick others off.
- Aelbric, on 12/19/2007, -2/+2The net effect of the United States pulling out of Iraq would be vastly greater than $70B (5% of the budget). If you think being penny wise now is a good idea, you are not looking forward to th chaotic vacuum that would be opened up if we just pulled up stakes and came home. Making strategic decisions out of emotion is a patently horrendous idea. How do you think we got there in the first place?
- userperson, on 12/19/2007, -1/+1So the war's no big deal?
- userperson, on 12/19/2007, -1/+3>>Would it be better if they blocked a budget bill which funds the war and starved our troops of resources?
YES!!!
not that it would ever happen.
but if they can't get resources, the war ends.
or likely the sadistic masters leave them there without, and blame those who dissent.
currently they stick guns to our head to fund a war we don't want. Those who do want a war can go fund and fight it themselves.
>> Whether you're for the war or against it, it's gonna keep costing money until it's over.
Which is why it needs to end.
- Aelbric, on 12/19/2007, -4/+2Not to mention this is less than 5% of the overall budget. The number is just scary to Joe Sixpack. This is a classic case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
- dumpyhumpy, on 12/19/2007, -13/+23IMPEACH
THE
PRESIDENT- jcastillo81, on 12/19/2007, -3/+8IMPEACH
EVERYONE IN WASHINGTON!- Lazrath, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3Reboot The Government!
- Pherdnut, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1But what if it's nothing but DOS underneath? 8(
- elam82, on 12/19/2007, -2/+1Too bad that won't solve anything...
Why does everyone throw that out like it's an easy fix to our problems. We impeach Bush then what?? Elect one of our wonderful candidates to take his place? The last thing we need to do now is put another fool into office, with the value of the dollar falling every day, that will only make things worse.- ZenMojo, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Actually, president goes, Cheney becomes president. Cheney goes, Bush stays president, Pelosi is now the deciding vote in the Senate and a Democrat takes her place.
You want a solution? Vote in more Democrats and stop whining because 50 Democrats can't pass a bill they need 60 Democrats to get through.
- ZenMojo, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Actually, president goes, Cheney becomes president. Cheney goes, Bush stays president, Pelosi is now the deciding vote in the Senate and a Democrat takes her place.
- norman619, on 12/19/2007, -1/+1$500 Billion dollar budget and all your ignorant ass can say is "impeach the president?"
- dumpyhumpy, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1It'd be the first step in the right direction. Impeachment, prosecution for war crimes etc...
and I also support impeaching every democrat that supports the president.
- dumpyhumpy, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1It'd be the first step in the right direction. Impeachment, prosecution for war crimes etc...
- Gemfinder, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4Impeach the President, recall the Senators, vote out the incumbents.
- jcastillo81, on 12/19/2007, -3/+8IMPEACH
- eatsushi, on 12/19/2007, -5/+11Sigh, sometimes I hate looking at my paycheck when I realize that half my money goes to THAT.
- ravamp3, on 12/19/2007, -2/+2holy ***** *****, you have 35 billion? i'll be damned...
- FredFredrickson, on 12/19/2007, -3/+2I was unaware that federal taxes were at 50% now.
- Draxius, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Heh, welcome to the upper middle class.
- userperson, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3It's not your money, it's your grand-children's money, assuming they'll actually have any.
Doesn't that make you feel better?
- buggles, on 12/19/2007, -9/+20two party system my ass. Man we need Ron Paul to "sweep out cronyism". Ron Paul needs a midget with a broom.
- FellOffACliff, on 12/19/2007, -1/+6Dugg for O Brother Where Art Thou reference.
- ZaZ2137, on 12/19/2007, -3/+3After carefully imagining that situation, that would be incredibly amusing.....until the midget runs after you swinging that broom then its scary as *****.
- FredFredrickson, on 12/19/2007, -6/+1Like another Republican is going to do any good at cleaning up this mess.
- thallium205, on 12/19/2007, -1/+5He is a Libertarian in disguise, and yes.. he can and will.
- userperson, on 12/19/2007, -1/+31 Ron Paul vs. 99.9% of Washington.
one might argue for some potential good, but sweep it out?, sadly I don't think so.
- virtualme7, on 12/19/2007, -1/+8Oh no!
Still the same story. Bush Administration still refuses to bring the troops back and Dems are afraid to look unsupportive of the troops at Christmas. So here's $70 billion, Merry Christmas troops! Come home safe. - KittySpark1es, on 12/19/2007, -6/+7I think we will need a revolution to stop this crap. Thank God it's already started.
- ender7074, on 12/19/2007, -1/+2Bring it on.
- FredFredrickson, on 12/19/2007, -3/+3Just stop it with this "revolution" *****. Sending one Republican out and then sending another one in after him is like a "revolving door," not a revolution.
- thallium205, on 12/19/2007, -2/+1You're dumb.. it's a revolution.
- cogitocogito, on 12/19/2007, -3/+8The Dems just want to preserve the status quo for the general election. They are actively resisting any change that could make the public see the awful situation in Iraq as their responsibility and not Bush's.
- ZenMojo, on 12/19/2007, -1/+1Most of the Dems tried passing a bill with a March 2008 withdrawal date attached. It got vetoed. Educate yourself and stop falling for the Republican *****.
- ruffus, on 12/19/2007, -4/+4buried for editorializing the headline.
- sonaboy, on 12/19/2007, -2/+6hahaha...DEMOCRAT CONGRESS.
whatever - they have a 4 seat majority. that won't pass any bill that the other side has issues with. we just have to sit there while BushCo continues to send the country into a financial spiral and lies and spins to cover their own asses.
***** this shadow of a democracy.- ender7074, on 12/19/2007, -1/+3The Democraps are in the majority right now. You people never ceace to amaze me. You complain when you're in the minority then complain that you dont have enough majority. Simply amazing. Everything that happens is someone elses fault, never the fault of your oh so sleazy Democrap party.
- milt5658, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1In the Senate, they have a ONE seat majority. And on Iraq, they have NO majority. Don't forget; they only have that one-vote majority because of Lieberman, and Lieberman is an Uber-republican on the occupation... (can we please stop calling this a war? if it's a war, identify the "enemy," please...)
- bfcnet, on 12/19/2007, -7/+5Suck it libs, the troops will have their funding all thanks to a Democrat controlled Congress. Muahahahaha!
- milt5658, on 12/19/2007, -1/+4Apparently, you haven't noticed, but none of this funding actually goes to the troops. Most of it goes to Halliburton and Blackwater, et al. After almost 5 years, they still don't have their body armor... so don't pretend to support the troops, because you don't.
- bjs3171, on 12/19/2007, -5/+2OH. MY. GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- jcastillo81, on 12/19/2007, -1/+9Let's make it like this government was an unwanted pregnancy and get a shmushmortion!
- hoovcluck, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2definitely going to qualify as a late-term
- norman619, on 12/19/2007, -4/+25This amazes me about people on Digg. They get all indignant about 70 billion for the war and ignore the rest of that $500 BILLION. Yes it's ridiculous they say one thing a do another but how about that other $430 billion? That is money they take from you, me, our children, and our children's children. 3000 pages of pork spending. You'd think the country isn't in bad shape financially but it sure as hell is. Our national debt is horrific due to ***** like this. Where are the people who are pissed off about them piling yet more debt on the shoulders of our grand kids? No all you idiots see is the war. If this continues the war will be the least of our worries. Wake the ***** up people. HALF A TRILLION?!
- superkendall, on 12/19/2007, -2/+5People on Digg only care that Republicans are defeated, ignoring whatever the people seeking to defeat them do. Simple as that. They don't really care about lower government spending... even a large majority of the Ron Paul crowd is more about "Not Bush" than "Yea Ron".
It's called "Bush Derangement Syndrome", and Digg is like a big ol' modern zoo to observe it.- brad3378, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3I just want to see the big spenders become unemployed - regardless of what political party they represent. Is that so much to ask?
- brad3378, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3I just want to see the big spenders become unemployed - regardless of what political party they represent. Is that so much to ask?
- rhodydog, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2I think it is 7.5 billion in actual pork, the rest is on things like energy, science, health etc. etc. which to me sounds like an investment. I am happy to see some of my money go towards building the country. You should have the right however not to have to give money to these programs but then you should not be able to benefit from them either.
- matador3, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Thats called a free market.
- superkendall, on 12/19/2007, -2/+5People on Digg only care that Republicans are defeated, ignoring whatever the people seeking to defeat them do. Simple as that. They don't really care about lower government spending... even a large majority of the Ron Paul crowd is more about "Not Bush" than "Yea Ron".
- colincornaby, on 12/19/2007, -4/+7Before people go crazy... Does anyone remember what happened last time Congress didn't approve a budget? Do you know what happens when the government has no budget? They don't just have a bunch of money sitting around for this situation. The entire government shuts down. Offices close down and lock their doors. Want a passport? Nope, can't get one. Millions of public servants go without pay. Should Congress leave millions of people without a paycheck just to prove a point? And I'm sure people will say that it will make a point to Bush. Do you really think that Bush cares? Bush doesn't care. He'll keep our troops overseas anyway. Except now, without a budget, they won't get paid. So now, we'll have troops overseas, not getting paid. And there is no flight home for them when they decide they don't want to fight without pay. They'll be stuck. So before you kids who weren't around for the last time the government was shut down by the Republicans wouldn't approve a budget complain, just think about what it would mean. I'm against the war, I'm against Bush, but the Democrats stalled as long as they could. Letting things go any further without the government having a budget is stupid, and it was stupid when the Republicans pulled the same stunt during the Clinton administration.
- norman619, on 12/19/2007, -4/+7Something tells me the budget would be MUCH smaller if they were spending their own money. You are a tool. Open your eyes. This is insane spending. Spending we can't afford. Your view is at least they passed a budget? It's like knowing you can't afford to but you go ahead and pay your mortgage and a buy a ***** load of expensive toys using your credit card and not thinking about how you will pay for it later. If you did this with your personal finances you'd be on the street in no time yet you think it's OK for the government to do this. Pull you head out of your ass please. There is no excuse for the budget being this ***** big. HALF A TRILLION. $500,000,000,000. Get the freaking picture?
- ZenMojo, on 12/19/2007, -2/+1If you couldn't pay your mortgage unless you bought the expensive toys, well....
- rhodydog, on 12/20/2007, -4/+0Get it into perspective, this is a big big country, $500,000,000,000 is less than 5% of our total wealth. It's used to oil the wheels that make the free market possible. If you want to live in an advanced economy there are costs, if you don't want to pay those costs there are plenty of third-rate countries you'd be happier living in. I for one want to see some basic services available that allow the rest of us to move forward. To start a business for example, there needs to be some basic community infrastructure in place, roads, law and order, educated people to employ, etc etc. On my own I could never afford to fund these and start the business. In any case the community (ie the tax payer) gets its money back many times over by people like me starting business and paying new taxes to the community (taxes that weren't there before). It's a win sin situation. Granted, if taxes get too high then it can stifle growth but we're not at that level. If you must strip money out of the budget isn't it best to reduce our spending on foreign adventures (> 5% of our wealth) first rather than our own needs here in the US?
- brad3378, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3Get it into perspective, this is a big big DEBT
$30,000 for every man, woman, and child. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Unfortunately children and retirees don't pay federal income tax and therefore place the debt burden on the rest of us.
- brad3378, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3Get it into perspective, this is a big big DEBT
- loconet, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1public servants would go without a pay cheque for a while, big ***** deal. Is the alternative any better? The continuation of a useless war, the tremendous waste of money and the ever increasing debt which not only is affecting millions of people now but will continue to affect people for years and years to come.
- norman619, on 12/19/2007, -4/+7Something tells me the budget would be MUCH smaller if they were spending their own money. You are a tool. Open your eyes. This is insane spending. Spending we can't afford. Your view is at least they passed a budget? It's like knowing you can't afford to but you go ahead and pay your mortgage and a buy a ***** load of expensive toys using your credit card and not thinking about how you will pay for it later. If you did this with your personal finances you'd be on the street in no time yet you think it's OK for the government to do this. Pull you head out of your ass please. There is no excuse for the budget being this ***** big. HALF A TRILLION. $500,000,000,000. Get the freaking picture?
- tierpinho, on 12/19/2007, -4/+9repubs and democrats - the same party keeping fooled since 1912. Think outside the box people and see the scam for what it is!
- jwolcott, on 12/19/2007, -10/+7@PATSCRU: Great point!
---------------
People that call the passing of this spending bill cowardly on the democrats end are completely clueless when it comes to the legislative branch. 1) The democrats are opposed to this bill, with 90% of dems in favor of a spending bill with withdrawal dates. 2) The number of republicans crossing party lines for a withdrawal spending bill can be counted on your hands. 3) Bush will veto any spending plan with strings attached. 4) Since no republicans are crossing party lines, there is no way for the dems to override the presidential veto with their RAZOR THIN CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITY. 5) They are forced to either pass a bill so basic military options like feeding the troops can continue, or hold a fillibuster which would put our troops in harm's way at some point or another.
STOP blaming democrats for a republican minority that is unwilling to break party lines to get our troops out by overriding Bush's vetos.
by PATSCRU
--------------- - superkendall, on 12/19/2007, -5/+3You forgot to add "baby eating child molesters"
*rolls eyes* - katanauser, on 12/19/2007, -9/+2rofl!
All you libs please have a stroke now! The DEMS are the bad guys! And always have been!- FredFredrickson, on 12/19/2007, -2/+4The repubs are the ones who got us into this mess in the first place... or did you just, er, forget about all that?
- thallium205, on 12/19/2007, -2/+2Oh really? Did you forget about the Dems starting: WWI, Korean War, Vietnam War, Iran Hostage Crisis, Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti Wars??? Dumbass...
- rhodydog, on 12/20/2007, -1/+0You're such an idiot, why can't you leave our country and find yourself a nice third-rate country to live, you'll be much happier.
- thallium205, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2And the soon-to-be Darfur War?
- rhodydog, on 12/20/2007, -1/+0You're such an idiot, why can't you leave our country and find yourself a nice third-rate country to live, you'll be much happier.
- thallium205, on 12/19/2007, -2/+2Oh really? Did you forget about the Dems starting: WWI, Korean War, Vietnam War, Iran Hostage Crisis, Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti Wars??? Dumbass...
- sammypai, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1lol!
- FredFredrickson, on 12/19/2007, -2/+4The repubs are the ones who got us into this mess in the first place... or did you just, er, forget about all that?
- IndiShukla, on 12/19/2007, -6/+3wow gg
- DiggerinCali, on 12/19/2007, -5/+10Reid and Pelosi were voted in to "change" D.C., and what have they done since then to stop the war? Absolutely nothing. Bush is Bush, but they all but promised they'd stop him the day they got into power.... this shows how little character they have, since they are too afraid of the backlash when it comes to stopping the funding. Spineless democrats at their best.
- ender7074, on 12/19/2007, -2/+3Good idea. Cut off our troops to teach Bush a lesson. Too bad its not your ass on the line over there but that would be too much to as wouldnt it?
- res8qr6m, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1If I were in the military, I'd rather be court-martialed than fight in Iraq. Despite the fact that I want all the troops home, none of them were forced into the clutches of the armed service so there is no reason that the public should support anything but an immediate pullout.
- mikemil828, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1They can't do anything with the tiny margin that they have. It's a no win situation, either they are going to get hurt for capitulating to the republicans or they are going to get hurt at election time with Republicans claiming that the Democrats don't support the troops. Doing the former is probably going to hurt them the least so that is what they are going for
- ender7074, on 12/19/2007, -2/+3Good idea. Cut off our troops to teach Bush a lesson. Too bad its not your ass on the line over there but that would be too much to as wouldnt it?
- synthpop, on 12/19/2007, -8/+4Democrats are just shills who's only job is to provide the illusion of a democracy and act as a scapegoat in case something goes wrong
- FredFredrickson, on 12/19/2007, -1/+3I love how the Republicans are the ones who get us into this mess, but now when the Democrats can't get us out, they're 'spineless.' All the while, Bush is the one threatening to cut armor and armaments from our troops if this funding doesn't go through, and Republicans do their best to make sure the funding won't go through with any strings (withdrawal time tables) attached.
But hey, let's blame the Democrats. What have they got, a 2 seat majority in the Senate? OMG, spineless!- Totalsam, on 12/20/2007, -0/+0Democrats voted to support the war as well. Of course all of them aren't "spineless," but senators like Pelosi who pander to the left with anti-war positions and then fund the war without a withdrawal plan are. God I hate ignorance.
Kucinich v. Paul 08
- Totalsam, on 12/20/2007, -0/+0Democrats voted to support the war as well. Of course all of them aren't "spineless," but senators like Pelosi who pander to the left with anti-war positions and then fund the war without a withdrawal plan are. God I hate ignorance.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 118 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is 