Another Chance to bash Republicans

peptoabysmal said:
And after the Dems have been so cooperative over the last eight years. What a shame. :oldroll:
Click to expand...
I'm told the Patriot Act and two authorizations for use of military force passed by a wide majority. I'm also told that congressional democrats knew of Bush's torture techniques and said nothing.

Which is it?
 
Upchurch said:
I'm told the Patriot Act and two authorizations for use of military force passed by a wide majority. I'm also told that congressional democrats knew of Bush's torture techniques and said nothing.

Which is it?
Click to expand...


I thought Bush had tricked the majority of them into voting his way by his lying lies.

Didn't he?
 
WildCat said:
It's not the spending that is an issue, it's the method. Republicans fear this is an attempt to overcount Dem areas (and thus gain Dem seats in the House) by introducing sampling as a tool in the census count. The SCOTUS has previously rejected this method. The GOP fears that removing this from the purview of the Commerce Secretary and giving it to a new department is an effort to politicize the Census process. It's not a baseless fear.
Click to expand...

I agree it does seem to be the census issue, though I thought it a bit disingenuous when Gregg described his reasons as "The Stimulus package and other issues". I think he was just using the occasion to take another party-line swipe at the administration's stimulus plan.

The census issue, from what I have gathered so far, seems to have to do with statistical modeling for those areas that have poor census numbers. I didn't get the impression the entire census procedure would be converted to a sampling approach. But either way, I can see how this would definitately cause some ire in political circles.
 
DavidJames said:
You really need to do some research before you make such comments. I hope you weren't one of those who used their votes for the Iraq war against Democrats in the past.
Click to expand...
LOL
No I don't. If I am walking outside and it starts to rain, I don't need to do research to see that it is raining. Have you been living in a cave or do you just have incredibly good blinders? Yes, the Dems were among those who voted to approve military force against Iraq, if needed. They did not vote "for" the Iraq war and that is a topic worthy of many other threads already. That does not wipe out eight years of obstructing almost every Republican proposal, appointment or idea that came along. Medicare, Social Security, Mortgage Finance, Offshore Drilling, Sam Fox, Steven Bradbury. war funding ... these are just a few topics that leap to mind, the list goes on and on. Research, LOL, just do a little googling. :D
 
peptoabysmal said:
LOL
No I don't. If I am walking outside and it starts to rain, I don't need to do research to see that it is raining. Have you been living in a cave or do you just have incredibly good blinders? Yes, the Dems were among those who voted to approve military force against Iraq, if needed. They did not vote "for" the Iraq war and that is a topic worthy of many other threads already. That does not wipe out eight years of obstructing almost every Republican proposal, appointment or idea that came along. Medicare, Social Security, Mortgage Finance, Offshore Drilling, Sam Fox, Steven Bradbury. war funding ... these are just a few topics that leap to mind, the list goes on and on. Research, LOL, just do a little googling. :D
Click to expand...
To bad moving the goal posts doesn't exercise the brain along with the body.

Yawn Just did a little googling. Damn obstructionist Democrats.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
I'm told the Patriot Act and two authorizations for use of military force passed by a wide majority. I'm also told that congressional democrats knew of Bush's torture techniques and said nothing.

Which is it?
Click to expand...
Upchurch said:
but were they being uncooperative when they agreed to his garbage?

Gullible, yes. Uncooperative, not so much.
Click to expand...

So the Dems are gullible and were fooled into going along with the evil mastermind Bush The Stupid during a time when emotions were high and the country as a whole feared for its security? Wow it just reeks of cooperation. :boggled:
 
peptoabysmal said:
So the Dems are gullible and were fooled into going along with the evil mastermind Bush The Stupid during a time when emotions were high and the country as a whole feared for its security? Wow it just reeks of cooperation. :boggled:
Click to expand...
Okay, how did they not cooperate? What did Bush want to do that they obstructed or prevented?
 
What the congressional democrats said and how they voted are 2 very different things.They would state bush's policies were bad,but would end up voting for most of those policies. Iraq is the best example.They voted to go to Iraq and approved money to stay in Iraq. They were just behaving like politicians,not that republicans are better.If situation reversed republicans would do exact same thing, see the Clinton administration.
(that is why i voted for montgomery brewster)

So the confusion is the dems sounded obstructionist but really werent
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
but were they being uncooperative when they agreed to his garbage?

Gullible, yes. Uncooperative, not so much.
Click to expand...


I don't subscribe to the point of view you were responding to, but this argument -- that they voted for that thing and then spent years complaining about the vote because Bush tricked them into it, the crafty chimp (normally by the claim he was willfully lying) -- is some sign of cooperation, is just not worth much. It isn't, wasn't, and will not be a measure of being "cooperative." It's a bad argument, regardless of the merits of the original post and resulting stuff flying from both sides.
 
NoZed Avenger said:
I don't subscribe to the point of view you were responding to, but this argument
Click to expand...
Oh, I don't subscribe to it either, as far as Congress goes. (As for what he sold to the American people, that's another issue.) I just wasn't challenging you on it, as it had little to do with what we were talking about.

NoZed Avenger said:
It isn't, wasn't, and will not be a measure of being "cooperative."
Click to expand...
So you say. Neither did they actively do much to hinder the process and most voted for the stuff Bush wanted up until the last year or two. If that isn't cooperating, what would you imagine cooperation to look like?
 
Upchurch said:
Oh, I don't subscribe to it either, as far as Congress goes. (As for what he sold to the American people, that's another issue.) I just wasn't challenging you on it, as it had little to do with what we were talking about.


So you say. Neither did they actively do much to hinder the process and most voted for the stuff Bush wanted up until the last year or two. If that isn't cooperating, what would you imagine cooperation to look like?
Click to expand...

I suspect it is just a matter of disagreeing on the terms being used. The Congress wanted the best of both worlds -- tough talk against Bush and the measures, and then they often caved to avoid the fallout from things like stopping funding for the troops. Then they sat around afterwards talking down the measures they just voted on, etc. I just don't agree that the behavior qualifies as "cooperation." YMMV.

Similarly, I don't call their vote on the war measure "gullible," because I simply don't believe for a second that a single person in the House or Senate was truly trusting, naive, or innocent.

Again, I don't buy the argument going the other way on this topic, either -- both sides appear to be wanting to eat their cake and have it, too.
 
NoZed Avenger said:
I suspect it is just a matter of disagreeing on the terms being used. The Congress wanted the best of both worlds -- tough talk against Bush and the measures, and then they often caved to avoid the fallout from things like stopping funding for the troops.
Click to expand...
Short term memory you have there. Right after 9/11, the Democrats rolled over like good little puppies for at least a good year or two. They voted for his wars and gave him years of funding for it.

NoZed Avenger said:
Then they sat around afterwards talking down the measures they just voted on, etc. I just don't agree that the behavior qualifies as "cooperation." YMMV.
Click to expand...
What would you consider qualifying as "cooperation"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom