PDA

View Full Version : Democrats on the brink of caving, again.



Beefy
12-12-2007, 09:28 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html

Is anyone surprised by this?

Good job with that mandate Democrats! Way to carry that torch!

And some of you idiots wonder why it is often referred to as a dupoply.

Beefy
12-12-2007, 09:35 PM
But Bush is a fiscal Conservative! YAY DANO!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.schip/index.html

For all his spending, all the bullshit, this is where he picks his battle. At least the democrats are good for something, preventing rubber stamp spending.

Pennywise and pound foolish. Well, penny lame and pound retarded anyway.

FUCK THE POLICE
12-12-2007, 10:32 PM
We should take away the presidents veto power. Can't think of one time in history that's ever done us any good at all.

TheDanold
12-12-2007, 10:49 PM
But Bush is a fiscal Conservative! YAY DANO!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.schip/index.html

For all his spending, all the bullshit, this is where he picks his battle. At least the democrats are good for something, preventing rubber stamp spending.

Pennywise and pound foolish. Well, penny lame and pound retarded anyway.
I never said that Bush is a fiscal Conservative, just that he is MORE fiscally responsible than the Dems and setting aside the war spending he is.

Dems would have gone to Iraq anyway, Vietnam, Korea, Haiti, Kosovo - all Democrat wars and many of them have gone off about Saudi Arabia, Darfur and Pakistan. They will war for "humanitarian" reasons and when they go to war the anti-war movement mysteriously shrinks bigtime to only include the Green Party type Liberals.

TheDanold
12-12-2007, 10:52 PM
We should take away the presidents veto power. Can't think of one time in history that's ever done us any good at all.

As just about all bills sent up include some government growth, I tend to agree with the founders that it is best to have the president with absolute control in stopping government from doing things.
Truman did tons of vetoes during the McCarthy era - that alone should probably convince you to rethink your pretend decent knowledge of history.

Socrtease
12-12-2007, 10:52 PM
I never said that Bush is a fiscal Conservative, just that he is MORE fiscally responsible than the Dems and setting aside the war spending he is.

Dems would have gone to Iraq anyway, Vietnam, Korea, Haiti, Kosovo - all Democrat wars and many of them have gone off about Saudi Arabia, Darfur and Pakistan. They will war for "humanitarian" reasons and when they go to war the anti-war movement mysteriously shrinks bigtime to only include the Green Party type Liberals.So war spending aside the pill bill was fiscally conservative? The Education bill he passed with Kennedy is your idea of fiscal conservatism? Please.

Beefy
12-12-2007, 10:55 PM
I never said that Bush is a fiscal Conservative, just that he is MORE fiscally responsible than the Dems and setting aside the war spending he is.

Dems would have gone to Iraq anyway, Vietnam, Korea, Haiti, Kosovo - all Democrat wars and many of them have gone off about Saudi Arabia, Darfur and Pakistan. They will war for "humanitarian" reasons and when they go to war the anti-war movement mysteriously shrinks bigtime to only include the Green Party type Liberals.

How is he more fiscally responsible that the dems given is record over the last 7 years, in which his "budgets" don't include his wars?

Seriously Dano, this guy is the biggest spender in the history of mankind. Period. How can he be more fiscally conservative than ANYTHING given that?

How, on gods green earth is he defensible to you?

FUCK THE POLICE
12-12-2007, 10:57 PM
As just about all bills sent up include some government growth, I tend to agree with the founders that it is best to have the president with absolute control in stopping government from doing things.
Truman did tons of vetoes during the McCarthy era - that alone should probably convince you to rethink your pretend decent knowledge of history.

*yawn*

The first use of the veto was by George Washington, in order so that he could secure an extra seat for Virginia in congress by using a different apportionment method. That should tell you something about it's use. America would be better without it. One man shouldn't be a super-legislature - that has nothing to do with EXECUTING THE LAW.

TheDanold
12-12-2007, 11:02 PM
*yawn*

The first use of the veto was by George Washington, in order so that he could secure an extra seat for Virginia in congress by using a different apportionment method. That should tell you something about it's use.
No that should tell me about ONE time it was used. Try researching the THOUSANDS of other times it was used. I'm sure even a reverted Socialist would find some goodies in that bag.



America would be better without it. One man shouldn't be a super-legislature - that has nothing to do with EXECUTING THE LAW.
You're right it doesn't, it has to do with STOPPING more laws. You really don't understood that the founders set up this republic with as much protection from more government as possible.

TheDanold
12-12-2007, 11:03 PM
Matt and Socrates, I am talking right now for the spending in that link.

FUCK THE POLICE
12-12-2007, 11:05 PM
No that should tell me about ONE time it was used. Try researching the THOUSANDS of other times it was used. I'm sure even a reverted Socialist would find some goodies in that bag.


You're right it doesn't, it has to do with STOPPING more laws. You really don't understood that the founders set up this republic with as much protection from more government as possible.

You really don't understand common sense. I don't believe in an elect-your-dictator system. America was simply lucky, most nations that have tried the flawed system of the founders have collapsed, only becoming stable again after deposing their dictators and setting up a parliamentary system. Parliamentarism developed through evolution. A bunch of men sat in a room and dreamed up the "perfect system" and came up with presidentialism. We all know how that goes, don't we - free market vs. communism.

FUCK THE POLICE
12-12-2007, 11:05 PM
THe greatest part of the constitution was the bill of rights. The rest doesn't really matter. It was set up by a bunch of people who wanted a compromise between monarchy and republicanism.

FUCK THE POLICE
12-12-2007, 11:24 PM
I'm really just tryin to piss you off, Dano.

FUCK THE POLICE
12-12-2007, 11:26 PM
But, you know, it isn't a direct equation. Making it more difficult to pass legislation /= better government. The LP has a 7/8ths requirement to pass changes in the party - well, you know, damn sure nothing ever changes. I'm sure you'd like that though, still able to own slaves and all..

FUCK THE POLICE
12-12-2007, 11:29 PM
Oh my God...

Dano's got a long one...

TheDanold
12-12-2007, 11:30 PM
You really don't understand common sense.
Teach it to me, O bastion of calm non-emo objectiveness!



I don't believe in an elect-your-dictator system.
Neither do I. Dictators have the power to do whatever they want, the president has the power to STOP congress from doing whatever they want.
Try another bullshit comparison.



America was simply lucky,
Wrong, a system that has more checks and balances will always have a better chance of withstanding giant destructive changes or ideas/programs of the time that can come with certain periods where it can be momentarily fashionable to do them.



most nations that have tried the flawed system of the founders have collapsed, only becoming stable again after deposing their dictators and setting up a parliamentary system. Parliamentarism developed through evolution. A bunch of men sat in a room and dreamed up the "perfect system" and came up with presidentialism. We all know how that goes, don't we - free market vs. communism.
Bullshit, what other nation copied us?
Parliaments are the definition of rubber stamping whatever their prime minister wishes or members are booted out of caucus and can risk losing their power to votes of non-confidence. America has many politicians on both sides that often vote against the grain of their party.
And our upper chamber of the senate is fully accountable, unlike the appointed senate in Canada or the untouchable house of lords in Britain.

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. I regret not taking the chance to encourage you to have read some basic Libertarian staples when you were open-minded enough a year ago to do so. Too late for you I think, but I think you make a good warning for all of the more senior freedom minded people here to get more involved in helping grow people who are curious about Libertarianism or lose them to being disgruntled manic and depressive cynical Liberal/Socialist slimeballs who pretend that Libertarianism is something they honestly tried out and then decided didn't work and now feel they need to have government lord it out over the rest of America that just doesn't get what special people like them do.

FUCK THE POLICE
12-12-2007, 11:33 PM
You know, some other nations exist without the veto. They seem to being doing about as good as us. In fact, better, because they're not crippled by conservatism.

Why does more democracy prevent dictatorshipo, Dano? You seem to believe at every step that keeping as much power out of the hands of people is as good as it can be. Just like the ignorant conservative you are. Well, you know Dano, the more you make things harder to change, the more you concentrate power into the hands of a few elites. A democracy becomes a dictatorship whenever a majority holds the exact same position. A "reserved" democracy becomes a dictatorship long before that.

TheDanold
12-12-2007, 11:34 PM
But, you know, it isn't a direct equation. Making it more difficult to pass legislation /= better government.
Do you mean !=
You always did suck at trying to imitate RS...


The LP has a 7/8ths requirement to pass changes in the party - well, you know, damn sure nothing ever changes.
I get it, you're frustrated you couldn't change anything and being a Liberal Democrat again means plenty of change and you don't care that it's just status quo change of ever more government.


I'm sure you'd like that though, still able to own slaves and all..
Oh yeah, slaves and freedom go together like 2 peas in a pod.

Obfuscate
12-12-2007, 11:34 PM
Bush has been so poor fiscally that there is now actually a debate on which party is better.

FUCK THE POLICE
12-12-2007, 11:35 PM
Do you mean !=
You always did suck at trying to imitate RS...


I get it, you're frustrated you couldn't change anything and being a Liberal Democrat again means plenty of change and you don't care that it's just status quo change of ever more government.


Oh yeah, slaves and freedom go together like 2 peas in a pod.

NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH! NATIONAL HEALTHCARE IS COMING, DANO, JUST WAIT ANOTHER YEAR!!!

All your life you've been fighting against it, now you'll finally be benefitting. Just learn humility.

TheDanold
12-12-2007, 11:42 PM
You know, some other nations exist without the veto.
And have they existed as long? Most of Europe went over to authoritarian rule at some point in the 20th century.



They seem to being doing about as good as us. In fact, better, because they're not crippled by conservatism.
Yeah, they're doing so much better, they keep moving over here, while very few Americans move over there. Makes sense.



Why does more democracy prevent dictatorshipo, Dano? You seem to believe at every step that keeping as much power out of the hands of people is as good as it can be. Just like the ignorant conservative you are. Well, you know Dano, the more you make things harder to change, the more you concentrate power into the hands of a few elites. A democracy becomes a dictatorship whenever a majority holds the exact same position. A "reserved" democracy becomes a dictatorship long before that.
LOL. The power is being kept out of the hands of government. Just because a lot of people, maybe even most, desire government to direct and take care of them, does not mean they are gaining more power, they are gaining dependence and nothing more.
But I and many others don't wish to lose our power as individuals to government, so tough shit, that's the difference between a republic and a democracy.

"In a republican nation whose citizens are to be led by reason and persuasion and not by force, the art of reasoning becomes of first importance." – Thomas Jefferson, 1824

FUCK THE POLICE
12-12-2007, 11:43 PM
Why is the veto called a POWER, Dano? The president just uses it to assert more of his power.

TheDanold
12-12-2007, 11:44 PM
NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH! NATIONAL HEALTHCARE IS COMING, DANO, JUST WAIT ANOTHER YEAR!!!

All your life you've been fighting against it, now you'll finally be benefitting. Just learn humility.

Not when people see the price tag, Liberal Oregon rejected it once they saw the giant tax increase needed. So will most of America.
Costs are already increasing much faster in just one year in Mass.

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free." – P.J. O'Rourke (1993)

TheDanold
12-12-2007, 11:45 PM
Why is the veto called a POWER, Dano? The president just uses it to assert more of his power.
Yeah, his power to STOP government and by doing so keeps more power in the people's hands (assuming (correctly) that most bills passed up to him involve more government).

Diuretic
12-12-2007, 11:49 PM
Republic v democracy....Granny Smith apple v Valencia orange.

FUCK THE POLICE
12-13-2007, 01:32 PM
Yeah, his power to STOP government and by doing so keeps more power in the people's hands (assuming (correctly) that most bills passed up to him involve more government).

He only uses it to bully the legislature into passing the bills he wants.

Liberano
12-13-2007, 01:45 PM
He only uses it to bully the legislature into passing the bills he wants.
You are wrong son.
For one he has barely even used it all:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0801767.html

For another they have been used to stop spending like SCHIP and federal stem cell research funding, NOT for pushing other bills. Good for Bush.

If you want someone who vetoes to try and get congress do what he wants because he won't accept anything from anyone else, check out FDR.

FUCK THE POLICE
12-13-2007, 01:50 PM
You are wrong son.
For one he has barely even used it all:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0801767.html

For another they have been used to stop spending like SCHIP and federal stem cell research funding, NOT for pushing other bills. Good for Bush.

If you want someone who vetoes to try and get congress do what he wants because he won't accept anything from anyone else, check out FDR.

Yep, exactly.

Liberano
12-13-2007, 01:53 PM
Yep, exactly.
:clink: