[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
BTW, Carol, you’re welcome to post in this IMHO thread.
[/QUOTE]
Strike that. The thread’s been locked.
Checks and balances are a harsh bitch.
There are systems of government out there where one guy gets to do whatever he wants without anyone standing in his way. Fortunately, the US doesn’t have one of those.
[QUOTE=DoctorJ]
There are systems of government out there where one guy gets to do whatever he wants without anyone standing in his way. Fortunately, the US doesn’t have one of those.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, but Carol can keep hoping, can’t she?
-Joe
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Does she think that funds for the war will be removed in conference?
[/QUOTE]
No, I don’t, but that’s part of what makes the Dems all the more pathetic. If they’re truly against the war, why don’t they vote to cut off funding entirely? Instead, we get a pork bill to entice their more recalcitrant members to vote FOR the funding. Peanut storage, anyone?
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
No, I don’t, but that’s part of what makes the Dems all the more pathetic. If they’re truly against the war, why don’t they vote to cut off funding entirely?
[/QUOTE]
Then morons like you would be calling them traitors and accusing them of hanging the troops out to dry.
The problem is that even if the Democrats knew they could implement whatever policy they wanted, with no opposition, the chimp in the White House has turned the whole Iraq thing into such a clusterfuck that simply withdrawing funding wouldn’t be an option. The Democrats don’t actually want more American troops to end up dead, no matter what Republican insinuations you are stupid enough to believe.
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
If they’re truly against the war, why don’t they vote to cut off funding entirely?
[/QUOTE]
If Bush truly supported the troops, he would sign the bill that provides funding for the war.
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
No, I don’t, but that’s part of what makes the Dems all the more pathetic. If they’re truly against the war, why don’t they vote to cut off funding entirely? Instead, we get a pork bill to entice their more recalcitrant members to vote FOR the funding. Peanut storage, anyone?
[/QUOTE]
That herring is now bright, fire engine red. Pork in the bill has nothing whatever to do with GW’s opposition to it. He’s signed Iraq supplemental funding bills containing pork hand over fist without a peep.
Real slowly now …
** It's the deadline.**
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
No, I don’t, but that’s part of what makes the Dems all the more pathetic. If they’re truly against the war, why don’t they vote to cut off funding entirely? Instead, we get a pork bill to entice their more recalcitrant members to vote FOR the funding. Peanut storage, anyone?
[/QUOTE]
:dubious: And when was the last war budget that was not loaded with extraneous pork?
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
Peanut storage, anyone?
[/QUOTE]
Are you volunteering your empty skull?