Talk the talk - walk the walk??

ferdville

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 24, 1999
3,165
5
0
77
So Cal
I know that there are several people here if not most people here, that are smarter than me. Inoted that the Senate approved a $50 billion spending bill for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and US military efforts against terrorism.

That didn't really surprise me since the Senate is Republican controlled.

What did surprise me was the vote ......

97 - 0

Can those of you who are Democrats explain this apparent anomaly to me?
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
because everyone agrees that we should spare no expense on the troops and most of us agree that we can't just bail out of what we started.

what's frustrating to me is that the administration thought it would be so much easier and inexpensive going into iraq. the incompetency and miscalculation is astounding.
 

ferdville

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 24, 1999
3,165
5
0
77
So Cal
"because everyone agrees that we should spare no expense on the troops and most of us agree that we can't just bail out of what we started."

I didn't know that.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
ssssuuurrre you didnt. there's an old saying where i'm from. fool me once....um ....you can't get fooled again.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Almost every American supports the troops. Most voted to give the President the power to go to war with Iraq because to vote no would have seriously cut our negotiating power. The fact that many believe the power was used incorrectly is another issue. It shows you the spin power of Washington and the Corporate Media who would have you believe that people against the war are against the troops and hoping for defeat.
 

LUX

el hombre!
Forum Member
Dec 28, 2004
431
0
16
53
Marietta, GA
smurphy said:
fool me once....um ....you can't get fooled again.

If you guys like this quote, the dishonest dubya doll has 13 more just like it. :mj07: :mj07:

dubya doll

DTB, I wanted to get you a little something for the holidays, could I get your mailing address please?
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
No one has balls in the senate any more that's why. To many getting in position to run for President. They hate to have any thing used against them. Take someone with real balls to vote no. What if they all had said MR Pres we all vote no bring all troops home in 180 days from Iraq. Seems Iraq's don't care to handle there own affairs anyway. Heres 10 billion to keep dealing with Afgan. Sorry to say were not done there yet.
 

dawgball

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 12, 2000
10,652
39
48
50
I agree with djv's first point. I don't believe that it is due to what smurphy eludes to on either Dem and Rep side for the most part. I think Senators look at it as career suicide to vote against a bill like this; especially when they are pretty sure it will pass without their vote anyway.

I would love it if the $50B came from excess pork. They could easily raise that money.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
ferdville said:
97 - 0

Can those of you who are Democrats explain this apparent anomaly to me?

I have another anomaly that needs explained. Maybe a Republican can answer this one? Why do certain people(not talking about Fred) continually harp that liberals are 'soft on terror, weak, peaceniks,' yet when it supports their point at the given time they run back and say, 'well, everybody voted for it,' as it pertains to pro-defense bills, appropriations, etc...
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
LUX said:
If you guys like this quote, the dishonest dubya doll has 13 more just like it. :mj07: :mj07:

dubya doll

DTB, I wanted to get you a little something for the holidays, could I get your mailing address please?

lmao-like the doll....

Wayne,

Does your 'stop the spin' mug have Bill O'Reillys face on it?
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,476
151
63
Bowling Green Ky
Don't have any mug Matt--not contributing to his charitable write offs--if its notfree I prob don't have it.

On your question about voting--depends if they voted against it before they voted for it.:) On more serious note I usually look at their voting record on defence spending in past to get clearer picture--would be political suicide to vote against spending in this situation.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
DOGS THAT BARK said:
.

On your question about voting--depends if they voted against it before they voted for it.:) On more serious note I usually look at their voting record on defence spending in past to get clearer picture--would be political suicide to vote against spending in this situation.

Agree. Definitely political suicide to vote against and also a laughable flip-flop comment by Kerry, especially in the way he presented it. But i'm sure you recall the slams on Kerrys voting record on defense appropriations and/or cuts from the late 80's and very early 90's, during the 2004 campaign? Showed Kerry being 'weak' on defense?

Except the facts showed that in many of the bigger and supposedly most important ones, Cheney and 'others' voted the same way and in fact proposed many of the cuts back then.

It was laid out here by myself and others, but strangely never got much response.
 

ferdville

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 24, 1999
3,165
5
0
77
So Cal
Kosar - you make an excellent point. Seems like business as usual; both sides want to play both sides.
 

Palehose

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 22, 2005
590
1
0
kosar said:
I have another anomaly that needs explained. Maybe a Republican can answer this one? Why do certain people(not talking about Fred) continually harp that liberals are 'soft on terror, weak, peaceniks,' yet when it supports their point at the given time they run back and say, 'well, everybody voted for it,' as it pertains to pro-defense bills, appropriations, etc...


Because its the Liberals that have a long history of beating up our troops even to the point where we took more casualties and documented facts that it put POW's through further torture IE: Jane Fonda and John Kerry .

It was also the Liberals who believed Hitler's word that he wouldn't take Holland and Belgium so the Liberals defeated the Conservatives in France that wanted to extend the Maginot Line (sp?) around to their western border with Belgium .

You see the Liberals have a long Documented History of making poor decisions that get our troops killed and as in WWII France lost their entire country from listening to these idiots. So all in all even though I don't believe they do things like this on purpose , I truly believe they have good intent and they believe their doing the right thing ...their just not realistic and their good intent backfires and you end up with ....well for instance WW2 and quite frankly if we ignored all the Liberal appeasement BS Hitler would have been smashed in the 1st year or 2 of him breaking his treaties not 12 years later after he almost conquered the planet .
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Does anyone remember when we were actually spending money to hunt down the man responsible for 9-11? How about how we would not have to continue funding the war in Iraq to the excesses we have been doing because the oil revenues would pay for that? Looks like the oil revenues are trickling back to the old USA, from the last profit-loss sheets we witnessed.

I'd imagine democrats realized that no matter what reason or logic they used to argue against continually writing blank checks for Bush - which in large part are signed over to Cheney/Halliburton - they could be labeled as weak and unpatriotic. Even those who voted against the war and then the initial extra funding for the Iraq war. Of course it's political preservation, which is sad, but understandable. I'd imagine there are conservatives that hated to push the yes button on that one, too, but who could come away looking good as the one person who was "umpatriotic and weak?"

Maybe some of these billions could actually go to PROTECT our troops and not patrol bomb-infested roads in unsafe trucks? Maybe some of these billions could go to the damn troops and not to Halliburton or other special interest associate companies for "work" done in Iraq?

But then, why would the money grab stop now? They only have another couple of years to prepare for retirement.
 

Palehose

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 22, 2005
590
1
0
Chadman said:
Does anyone remember when we were actually spending money to hunt down the man responsible for 9-11? How about how we would not have to continue funding the war in Iraq to the excesses we have been doing because the oil revenues would pay for that? Looks like the oil revenues are trickling back to the old USA, from the last profit-loss sheets we witnessed.

I'd imagine democrats realized that no matter what reason or logic they used to argue against continually writing blank checks for Bush - which in large part are signed over to Cheney/Halliburton - they could be labeled as weak and unpatriotic. Even those who voted against the war and then the initial extra funding for the Iraq war. Of course it's political preservation, which is sad, but understandable. I'd imagine there are conservatives that hated to push the yes button on that one, too, but who could come away looking good as the one person who was "umpatriotic and weak?"

Maybe some of these billions could actually go to PROTECT our troops and not patrol bomb-infested roads in unsafe trucks? Maybe some of these billions could go to the damn troops and not to Halliburton or other special interest associate companies for "work" done in Iraq?

But then, why would the money grab stop now? They only have another couple of years to prepare for retirement.


Dam Chad I didnt realize all that cold weather killed brain cells ...sorry man get help :mj07:
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Chad it is sad how the credit card has no bottom. You don't think Bush gives a chit anymore do you. Only thing he worries about is if there are cameras where ever he goes to look busy.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top