“#74537 by royf on 6/01 at 3:27 pm
(6 comments total)

“#74147 by JNagarya on 5/31 at 1:52 am

““. . . .  By their actions, the Democrats obviously have no intention of doing anything, only throwing Democratic voters a few crumbs to keep them hoping . . . .””

“You, son, are an ass who illudes himself that he can read minds and predict the future.”

“Funny how I said, “By their actions...” That doesn’t sound like reading minds to me. . . . smelling the coffee.”

You say: “. . . obviously have no intention of doing”—from which point you refer to the future.  Thus you pretend to read minds.

“If I haven’t bashed the Republicans much here, it’s because that goes without saying, obviously.”

No, it doesn’t.  Want impeachment?  Then you’ll have to communicate that to sufficient Republicans that they join the Democrats to do that.  You don’t do that by pretending they don’t exist.

“If I am an ass, I’m in very good company, because it seems to be the overwhelming opinion of Democrats that they caved in and betrayed us . . . .”

It’s terrible to be unable to distinguish oneself from the conformist herd.  For a time seventy per cent in the US believed Saddam had WMDs and was behind 9/11.  Was the majority correct then too? 

“. . . .  Congress, led by the Democrats, sent a bill to Bush funding the war but also setting an ending date.  (It’s amazing how they managed to pass that bill, despite your claim that they don’t have enough votes.)”

Did they have the votes to override the veto?  No.  Have there been changes in Congress which make that possible?  No.

“Everyone knew Bush would veto it.”

And?

“And everyone said that the Democrats couldn’t “cave in” . . . and then pass a bill funding the war with no restrictions . . . or they would look like complete fools. . . .  Bush vetoed it, and just as I expected . . . the Dumbocrats . . . caved in!!!!”

Refutation of that oversimplification is in the details I cited, but you ignore: the Democrats forced Bushit to compromise—a first in six years; a major accomplishment.  And he was forced to accept a bill with domestic spending to which he was adamantly opposed, including monies for veterans affairs.  And an increase in the minimum wage—to which Bushit is especially hostile. 

“If they had the votes to pass that first bill that took a stand, they obviously had the votes to keep passing such bills, and they had the public overwhelmingly behind them, but for utterly no reason, and with every reason not to cave in, they still caved in!!!!”

You’re reading minds again.  Politics is “the art of the possible”: If one can’t get it all in one bite, then get it in one or more smaller bites.

“So now they look like complete fools, because WHAT THE HECK WAS THE POINT OF THAT FIRST BILL?!?!”

They look like fools to asses.  The point of the bill was to make a good faith effort, in the face of a known veto.  Bushit vetoed—not the Democrats, who then settled for a smaller bite, which included forcing Bushit to compromise, etc.

“The only explanation I can think of is that it was just to make it look like they were doing something, when they really had no intention to,”

You’re reading minds again.

“but they were too dumb to see how it would backfire on them.”

Actually, they knew in advance—as did you—that the bill would be vetoed; and knew that the backlash was coming.  So they decided to accomplish something substantive, instead of accomplishing only another veto.

“Too bad you are unable to discuss this in a civil way, so I am not going to waste any more time on this.”

I’m able to discuss it in a civil manner; but I won’t be intellectually dishonest, like you and the alleged “majority” that “agrees” with you, by agreeing to ignore the details which refute your, and their, horseshit.

#74147 by JNagarya on 5/31 at 1:52 am

“. . . .  By their actions, the Democrats obviously have no intention of doing anything, only throwing Democratic voters a few crumbs to keep them hoping they’ll do something substantial.”

You, son, are an ass who illudes himself that he can read minds and predict the future.  BASH THOSE WHO ARE BLOCKING AND OBSTRUCTING THE DEMOCRATS: THE _R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N-S_.

Funny how I said, “By their actions...” That doesn’t sound like reading minds to me.  That sounds like waking up and smelling the coffee.  If I haven’t bashed the Republicans much here, it’s because that goes without saying, obviously.  If I am an ass, I’m in very good company, because it seems to be the overwhelming opinion of Democrats that they caved in and betrayed us last week, from liberal websites I read and people I talk with.  Even most of the comments on this thread seem to agree.

Let’s review what has happened.  Congress, led by the Democrats, sent a bill to Bush funding the war but also setting an ending date.  (It’s amazing how they managed to pass that bill, despite your claim that they don’t have enough votes.) Everyone knew Bush would veto it.  And everyone said that the Democrats couldn’t “cave in”, as everyone was describing it, and then pass a bill funding the war with no restrictions, having first taken that stand, or they would look like complete fools.  So what happened??  Bush vetoed it, and just as I expected, knowing what the Dumbocrats are like, they caved in!!!!  If they had the votes to pass that first bill that took a stand, they obviously had the votes to keep passing such bills, and they had the public overwhelmingly behind them, but for utterly no reason, and with every reason not to cave in, they still caved in!!!!  So now they look like complete fools, because WHAT THE HECK WAS THE POINT OF THAT FIRST BILL?!?!  The only explanation I can think of is that it was just to make it look like they were doing something, when they really had no intention to, but they were too dumb to see how it would backfire on them.

Too bad you are unable to discuss this in a civil way, so I am not going to waste any more time on this.

“#73982 by royf on 5/30 at 2:54 pm
“(4 comments total)

“In response to JNagarya again:

“Last November Americans elected Democratic majorities to both the House and Senate.”

A slim majority in the House—not enough for Democrats alone to override veto.  Do the math: In the Senate the “majority” is: 49 Republicans, 50 Democrats, one of whom is recovering from brain surgery, so unable to vote, and 1 Independent.

So it’s 49R-49D-and Lieberman.  And in event of a tie, Cheney.

“Therefore they don’t need any Republicans to stop funding the war or impeaching.”

Yes they do.  It takes more votes in the House to impeach than the toal number of Democrats.  It’s also politically premature to attempt any vote on impeachment.  Try it too soon and it fails—and sets that option back.

All the rest is untehtered speculation based upon your illusion that you can read minds and predict the future, therefore not worth bothering with. 

“. . . .  By their actions, the Democrats obviously have no intention of doing anything, only throwing Democratic voters a few crumbs to keep them hoping they’ll do something substantial.”

You, son, are an ass who illudes himself that he can read minds and predict the future.  BASH THOSE WHO ARE BLOCKING AND OBSTRUCTING THE DEMOCRATS: THE _R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N-S_.

Or continue being stupid.

Read Marie Cocco’s article—above—about the freshman Democrats and the ethics/lobbying bill they pushed through.  It’s idealistic, and risky, but it’s what was also demanded by the election outcome.

Theey are fulfilling their promises, as able, but you couldn’t care less enough to pay attention and learn that fact.  You are a blowhard expressing the usual excuses for demanding everyone else do it for you.

“If they manage to win the presidency next year, it’s obvious they will do nothing much once in power, not even rolling back what Bush has done.”

Again you illude yourself that you can read minds and predict the future.  It’s no wonder you’re bent on ignoring the facts that are in your face.  Take your Democrat-only bashings to Free Republic, troll.

In response to JNagarya again:

Last November Americans elected Democratic majorities to both the House and Senate.  Therefore they don’t need any Republicans to stop funding the war or impeaching.  They aren’t doing either because the right-wing Democratic leadership is actively squashing both.

As for their investigations, they seem to be going nowhere.  The Republicans stonewall, and then the Democrats just let the matter drop.  Due to their stonewalling, there’s nothing left to do BUT impeach.  And I mean the people at the very top, not Gonzales.  Fascists always turn on each other, the person at the very top throwing anyone below them to the wolves to save their own skin.

I know what it’s like to be on the other side, angry at the people who voted for Nader.  But enough is enough!  By their actions, the Democrats obviously have no intention of doing anything, only throwing Democratic voters a few crumbs to keep them hoping they’ll do something substantial.  Do any of them even talk about repealing the Patriot Act and all the other legislation threatening our freedom, if they won both the presidency and Congress next year?  Michael Moore aptly called Clinton “the best Republican president we ever had”, and the Democrats have lurched even farther to the right since then.  If they manage to win the presidency next year, it’s obvious they will do nothing much once in power, not even rolling back what Bush has done.  To think otherwise seems to be naive.

If we had instant runoff voting, we could vote for whoever we wanted without wasting our vote.  I could number the Green Party as my 1st choice and the Democrats 2nd.  But we don’t.  The present system creates the weird dynamic where probably most Democrats would rather vote for the Green Party at this point, since the Greens are now what the Democrats pretend to be, but aren’t.  But they don’t want to waste their vote and make the Republicans win.  But if they all DID actually vote the way they wanted, the Greens would get more votes than the Democrats, so the Democrats would become the 3rd party.  Once on the other side of that hump, everyone else would rush to the Greens to not waste their votes on the Democrats.  (And one of the goals of the Greens is instant runoff voting, so we’d never again have this problem.) Instead of people on our side attacking each other about which is the best strategy to use, voting for the lesser of 2 evils or trying to push the Democrats to the left by threatening to defect, maybe someone could come up with a way of getting us past that hump.  How about some website that would take polls of who people would RATHER vote for, as opposed to who they WILL vote for?  Allow people to use instant runnoff voting for that poll.  If we all saw that the Greens actually have more support than the Democrats, we would all know that it was safe for everyone to jump ship en masse, and that knowledge might cause people to actually do so.  I’m just throwing out ideas here.

“#73746 by royf on 5/29 at 11:57 am
(3 comments total)

“In response to JNagarya’s comment:

“The Democrats only need a simple majority to refuse to pass any more bills funding the occupation, or better yet, keep sending our fuhrer more funding bills they know he’ll veto.”

But they won’t have that “simple majority” until Republican foot-draggers are willing to join them.  Stop ignoring that reality.

“The Democrats only need a simple majority in the House to impeach Bush and Cheney.”

Except that they haven’t sufficient votes yet to have that “simple majoirty”.  That is because Republicans are foot-dragging.

So you bash the Democrats because you’re either a troll, or clueless.

“They need a 2/3 majority to CONFICT them, but let’s start the process rolling already, and the process itself will make all their crimes more well-known to those who haven’t been paying attention.”

The Democrats don’t yet have sufficient votes to even bring up the question of impeachment for debate, let alone drawq up Articles of Impeachment.  Stop being an ass by ignoring that reality in order to bash the Democrats.  The problem is the Republicans.

“The same thing happened with Watergate.  When the impeachment hearings started the public and Congress were against impeaching Nixon, but the hearings informed them of what his administration had done and changed their minds.”

False.  When the hearings of testimony prior to the impachment hearings began, the people began paying attention.  The purpose of those hearings was to inform the public of the facts.  At the same time, investigations continued.

We are now in the “show cause” phase—that of showing the people with public testimony the process of the investigation, and strategically releasing information and evidence that lays the ground work for the case.

There is more investigation necessary—one doesn’t impeach on hot air.  Or mere allegation.  Gonazales is neutralized, and by now a side issue.  Do you want him impeached and removed, so the Republicans can say, “Okay, you got the bad guy.  You got your impeachment.  Now let’s move on to avoiding the rest of the issue?”

And, the Democrats don’t yet have sufficient votes to impeach—because the Republcians are the obstacle.  Assholes will continue to ignore those facts in order to have excuse to stomp their feet, hold their breath till they turn blue, and bash the Democrats.

In response to JNagarya’s comment:

The Democrats only need a simple majority to refuse to pass any more bills funding the occupation, or better yet, keep sending our fuhrer more funding bills they know he’ll veto.

The Democrats only need a simple majority in the House to impeach Bush and Cheney.  They need a 2/3 majority to CONFICT them, but let’s start the process rolling already, and the process itself will make all their crimes more well-known to those who haven’t been paying attention.  The same thing happened with Watergate.  When the impeachment hearings started the public and Congress were against impeaching Nixon, but the hearings informed them of what his administration had done and changed their minds.

The longer we wait, it may be that the less likely they will be impeached, because more people will say that their terms will be drawing to a close anyway, so what’s the point.

We can’t afford to wait.  The longer we wait, the more mayhem goes on, and the more money we flush down the toilet on the occupation.  Cheney may nuke Iran and start World War 3.  Bush may declare martial law, as he can now do on a whim, and suspend democracy altogether.  They may stage another 9-11 to have the excuse.

The Republicans may have no incentive to do anything as the elections get close if the Democrats are just as bad.  The Democratic Congress now has even a lower approval rating than Bush!!  Way to go, Dumbocrats, you’ve accomplished the impossible!  Besides, the Republicans will steal the next elections anyway.

As for the laughably small increase in the minimum wage, gimme a break!  Another attempt by the Democrats to fool the public into thinking they’re doing something substantial and are on their side.

Politics is indeed the “art of the possible”, and it can hardly be more possible for the Democrats to do something than now.  Those who aren’t uninformed and intellectually lazy may ask themselves why, with every opportunity to do something, and a large majority of the public screaming at the Democrats to do something, they still don’t do something, claiming that if they do something popular, they’ll be unpopular.  A clue to the answer is that the main “benchmark” for Iraq to meet, that the Democrats put into their bill to continue funding the occupation, is for Iraq to pass a law allowing the oil companies to steal Iraq’s oil.  The answer is that the Democrats (with just a few exceptions such as Kucinich) are now Republicans.

“...In all likelihood, this will spawn new loopholes. All political reforms have a way of doing that. Special-interest money oozes into politics from every crevice it can find...”

Except that now it really doesn’t matter. The lobbyists are there to get money directed toward their own masters, but they no longer have the power to affect real legislation which is done now by the executive, since the Congress has become all but superfluous and nugatory.

Democracy died in December of 2000, and the Congress really hasn’t had any power since the executive and the supremely corrupt court joined in a cabal to impose totalitarian government on the USA.

Sigh. Having gone to all this trouble, it is doubtful that the Bushitters will permit a presidential change in 2008, so we will be stuck with the moronic puppet for as long as they decide, OR perhaps they will replace one moron with another if they can control the voting machinery to that extent.

I’m almost ready to believe that both the moron in the white house and the other moron, Kerry, were BOTH slated to be puppets, and the power behind the curtain didn’t care which moron won.

It now appears that McCain is trying very hard to be “moron #2” with all of the idiotic mutterings he is making these days, so they could use him and make it appear that we actually had an election, but make no mistake about it, democracy is dead.

Think about it: what difference will laws make if there is no one but the corrupt executive to enforce them, and it only enforces those laws it likes? That is EXACTLY what you have today.

Hopefully the “left” and “liberals” who have been bashing the Democrats will cease doing so.  All the bashing of Democrats over the Iraq supplemental overlook (I’m being polite) several important facts about it:

First, the Democrats didn’t have the votes to get the bill they wanted _SIGNED_ by Bushit.

Second, the Democrats forced Bushit to compromise for the first time in six years—no small accomplishement.  Thus included in the bill is domestic spending, including some for veterans (wich latter Bushit opposed because he “supports the troops").

Third, also included: an increase in the minimum wage.

Meanwhile, the “mainstream” media described the bill as a “victory” for Bushit—it is not only far from that, it is only the first in a series of incremental steps toward actually getting out of Iraq—and the intelletually lazy “left"ists and “liberals” bashed the Democrats for “caving”.

All of which is easier than informing oneself, and learning that “politics is the art of the possible”—not a game in which those who haven’t the votes today nonetheless do today that the uninformed and intellectually lazy demand, even if it destroys the chance to do it later, when the support is stronger and the impossible is more possible.

The Democrats haven’t yet sufficient votes to bring up the issue of impeachment even as a topic of discussion, let alone draw up Articles of Impeachment.  Why?  Because the Republicans are so far not joining them on that issue.  So who do the “left” and “Liberals” bash over that fact?  Democrats.

Watch: as the elections come closer, those Republicans who aren’t entirely nuts, and who want to be reelected, will begin to vote with the Democrats—especially if Gonzales is still where he is, keeping those issues front and center, and continuing to damage Bushit, et al.—and those Republicans who refuse to take the right stand on the issue.

If there are to be criminal indictments, they will come at earliest in the Fall-Winter—leading into an increase in campaigning, and attention to Bushit’s lawlessness, in the Spring.

May I have to say that Bush/Cheney have new bunch of servants ?

“The draining of the swamp, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi likes to put it, is a grand experiment. Since January, the House and Senate have both gone far toward dismantling the infamous K Street Project, which was engineered by former House Republican leader Tom DeLay”.
Nancy, calling it a “grand experiment” is a streach, I would call it, “Grasping for integrity”.

We can only hope these are baby footsteps for more positive changes to come.  I urge Congress not to stop here.

Wow - it has been a long time to get some good news, any good news, from Congress.  A tidbit of hope!