Democrats SURRENDER....
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.2
- Start date
No shit. I figured they would cave, but a 90-6 vote is ridiculous. These terrorists are just human beings. It isn't as though they have superpowers permitting them to break out of supermax facilities at will and leave a path of destruction in their wakes.
Bunch of dumbasses. It's embarrassing, really.
Bunch of dumbasses. It's embarrassing, really.
I did notice that the 91.3 Billion dollar appropriations bill isn't in the budget and the total lack of complaint from the Ds about that as well.
Just months ago it was a major issue when war appropriations were voted separately from the budget.... a very few months...
Just months ago it was a major issue when war appropriations were voted separately from the budget.... a very few months...
Whomever
uscitizen alternate login
Still a major issue with some of us.
This supplemental is for 2009, the last budget year of President Bush whereas Obama's proposed budget for 2010 includes overseas operations in the DoD budget.
In short, you're way off base.
We'll see, it's possible. But I'm willing to guess, like all Presidents before, war appropriations will be separate. Overseas operations are different than war appropriations. People serving in Germany are part of "overseas operations"....
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Its the same thing with windfarms, nuclear power plants, off shore drilling... so many people in favor of it so long as it isn't in their back yard.
I figured they would lose that battle.... I had no clue they would cave to that extent.
There is a lack of room in Supermax facilities. Even our idiot Governor suggested they come to CO to spend their time in Supermax without being able to count the (I can't remember exactly but it is a low number so I'll throw one out there that I know was larger...) 17 rooms available as opposed to the many terrorists in GITMO.
It will cost us to build new facilities, it would be far more cost effective to change policy and improve current facilities.
Well, at least you appear to understand why George W. Bush is responsible for this particular supplemental appropriations bill.
If you really want to know what is included in the FY2010 Defense Department budget you could look it up and determine whether your criticism has any basis in fact. You don't need to guess:
http://www.defenselink.mil/comptrol...y2010_SSJ_Overseas_Contingency_Operations.pdf
You could also determine whether or not all presidents before used supplemental appropriations to fund wars:
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22455.pdf
Indeed, the initial stages are usually funded by supplemental appropriations bills, as well as times when continued operations exceed the budgets.
Bush's excessive appropriations notwithstanding, it is my bet that Obama will reach into this well during his term, and that there will be very little argument from people with Ds following their name on the television.
In this case, I agreed with the Ds and thought that initially it would need to be supplemental appropriations, but afterward should be as much on the budget as possible, however did understand that almost all Presidents during wartime go to this particular well....
It is my expectation that when Obama reaches his hand into that particular bucket, it will be filled with what he is looking for, with very little objection from those who objected strenuously to Bush's excessive use... The reason I bring it up, is because even reading what you give links to, it is clear that when he does, it will not be treated the same yet nobody suggested that some appropriations would be okay. If you listened since 2003, ANY war appropriations should have been on the budget only and no President has ever reached into that well before.... (Again, IMO he did it excessively to specifically create budgets that were not as much in deficit as his war actually brought us.)
Only in your opinion, in reality, even a D on this thread knew what I was saying without all this disingenuous rubbish in between that you had to throw out there in the hopes that I was uninformed and had ill-formed opinions based on ignorance. In reality, it is what they said and what will be ignored when a different hand reaches into the same pot.
Maybe you aren't uninformed but you just like to misinform others. And you have ill-formed opinions based on your biases, not necessarily based on ignorance.
It is not the case that almost all presidents did what Bush did for war funding. Dating back to WWII presidents included funding for ongoing military operations through the regular budget and appropriations process, not by funding wars exclusively through supplemental/emergency appropriations.
It may be true that Obama follows past precedent by seeking some supplemental appropriations. After all, it is difficult to plan for every contingency in a budget. But by including funding for Iraq and Afghanistan in the DoD budget, something that Bush did not do unlike other presidents dating back to WWII, Obama is reversing a pernicious (and obnoxious) Bush practice.
And show me what "they" said. Your memory has been shown to be less than reliable, particularly when it comes to painting Democrats in a bad light.
I stated it was not the case that they all did it like Bush and even described how he did it differently... This is when you get all disingenuous and suddenly can't read crap and build straw men.
Maybe you really can't read and that is really the problem. An idiot savant at writing and fudging out a false impression rather than actually comprehending what you read?
I hope that is the case, because all it would take is actually reading my post to show that I really did say that.
And you last line is an opinion based on your own bias. I again present this very thread, where another D clearly understood what I was talking about even without all your disingenuous BS thrown back at you.
Cypress left and you figured you better take his place as the most disingenuous poster? Things were getting too nice being able to hold direct conversations without pretending the past never happened and that you haven't the foggiest of any opinion of mine that you are not reading at that very second? You are a real piece of work, in your mind you are some perfect and unbiased political science major, but when other people look they see the hack at work, throwing out distractions in the hopes nobody will notice they're really an anorexic teen who sees a fat girl in the mirror.
I'm just a careful reader with a heightened bullshit detector and you are an imprecise writer that bullshits a lot.
In my estimation, you disingenuously state that the Democrats were opposed to any supplemental funding of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars:
That isn't true. The issue was using solely supplemental appropriations to fund the wars and never funding them throught the regular appropriations process
Then you "predict" that the Democrats will not get made at Obama for supplemental funding requests like they did with Bush:
This particular bit is bullshit because (1) it equates Obama funding the war operations through the regular appropriations process and using supplemental requests for their actual purpose, to supplement, with Bush's exclusive use of supplemental appropriations as a means to fund the war; and (2) you pretend (again) that the Democrats opposed all supplemental war funding as opposed to exclusive use of supplementals.
To address your edit:
1) OK, so it's my opinion. But at least it is based on actual facts. Like the fact that the Senate passed several sense of the Senate resolutions that simply stated that the ongoing operations ought to be funded in the DoD budget not in supplementals, as opposed to saying that all supplemental funding is bad. Whereas your opinion is based on what you believe you remember about people you generally dislike.
2) This is quite hilarious. Basically, you tried to get in some snarky post about how the Democrats aren't complaining about this Obama supplemental appropriation when, in fact, this a Bush legacy and I called you out on it. Instead of admitting your error you continued with your disingenuous horseshit. But instead of arguing with me about the past, which you know you can't do, you instead make this an issue about what Obama might do in the future and how the Democrats might react and how your prediction for hoe they will react makes them hypocrites based on your erroneous perception of their previous position on supplementals.
I guess I understand why you call me names. It's no fun when you can't just make shit up all the time.
Did I not? I thought I noted the error in a post afterward and that you even mentioned that I recognized that it came from the previous year's budget. Hmmm... maybe somebody can find that quote in an earlier post of yours, I remember it being "snarky"... I just don't cry about it with forced "laughter" when people are "snarky"....
Maybe even I can... I'll try real hard to read...
You are now spouting even more BS. When the funding doesn't get any less are the D party going to go after their own? They were using any means to attack Bush, this was just another of them.
What they were constantly spouting on about on this site was that he used that as a means to say that the budgets were less in deficit than they really were, does it make it "better" when they are quadrupled, not all of it being war and will still need supplemental appropriations? I don't think so. I made a prediction, I based it on what I have seen at this site, others noticed it enough to be able to answer, honestly. One person says that when Obama reaches into this same barrel, he will not like it... The other says, "We weren't saying that!" Already excusing dipping into supplements on top of record deficits to fund a war that he promised to end. I see that same party that promised to get rid of the GITMO detention center pretty much on their way to continuing it... I see the people who were against generally becoming "for" all because of one letter...
As I said you look in the mirror and see the picture of health, but you really are skeletal here.
