A review of our democrat congress, so far...

[vidcc]

Oh.

So there was no obstructionist intent whatsoever on the part of the Dems, then, and you think the Republicans really just want to "keep killing our young people so Bush can keep vainly trying to salvage Iraq", huh?

Your naivete is quite astounding.

Conservative leaders among House Republicans say that President Bush's upcoming showdown with them on immigration could threaten support for the Iraq war as well as for the president's other top policy goals.

"The White House should keep in mind that if they have a direct confrontation with House Republicans on [immigration], it could affect the vote on the Iraq appropriation in September," said Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican. "It will not affect me. I intend to stand by the president. But I do think it is something they should keep in mind for other Republicans who are borderline"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...106240047/1001
Is it possible that House Republicans support for the president’s war policy might have something to do with partisan loyalties, instead of sincere beliefs about the best way forward?

I think it naive to think that party loyalties aren't a big influence.

[j2k4]

Conservative leaders among House Republicans say that President Bush's upcoming showdown with them on immigration could threaten support for the Iraq war as well as for the president's other top policy goals.

"The White House should keep in mind that if they have a direct confrontation with House Republicans on [immigration], it could affect the vote on the Iraq appropriation in September," said Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican. "It will not affect me. I intend to stand by the president. But I do think it is something they should keep in mind for other Republicans who are borderline"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...106240047/1001
Is it possible that House Republicans support for the president’s war policy might have something to do with partisan loyalties, instead of sincere beliefs about the best way forward?

I think it naive to think that party loyalties aren't a big influence.

WTF are you on about now?

Bush-loyalty is incredibly low at the moment, and the Dems still can't get their shit together, so they're going to blame the Republicans for their impotence?

If I were outside on my deck, I'm sure you could hear my laughter in the la-la land you live in.

[Busyman™]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...106240047/1001
Is it possible that House Republicans support for the president’s war policy might have something to do with partisan loyalties, instead of sincere beliefs about the best way forward?

I think it naive to think that party loyalties aren't a big influence.

WTF are you on about now?

Bush-loyalty is incredibly low at the moment, and the Dems still can't get their shit together, so they're going to blame the Republicans for their impotence?

If I were outside on my deck, I'm sure you could hear my laughter in the la-la land you live in.

WTF are you on about Mr Partisan? You are talking about Dems when he was talking internal squabling. Where the hell did get blame from?

You can't help yourself. It's a Repub vs. Dem world for everyfuckingthing.

It was as simple as "Support our cause and we'll support yours" with little regard for what is necessarily right (I'll add to that) especially for a President who's on his way out.

How is it that you missed that?

[vidcc]

WTF are you on about now?

Bush-loyalty is incredibly low at the moment, and the Dems still can't get their shit together, so they're going to blame the Republicans for their impotence?

If I were outside on my deck, I'm sure you could hear my laughter in the la-la land you live in.

Perhaps you should read it again, or actually read to begin with

How j2 reads the NY times (and our posts)

[j2k4]

WTF are you on about Mr Partisan? You are talking about Dems when he was talking internal squabling. Where the hell did get blame from?

You can't help yourself. It's a Repub vs. Dem world for everyfuckingthing.

It was as simple as "Support our cause and we'll support yours" with little regard for what is necessarily right (I'll add to that) especially for a President who's on his way out.

Aren't your Dems here (public mandate in hand, or so they say) to save the U.S. and the world from Bush?

Let them get on with it, then, as you would have them do.

Honestly, and you must admit this, because it is true:

They are totally bereft of any ideas they can call their own, and live in mortal fear of our involvement in the war continuing to any significant extent beyond the Bush presidency, because if the Dems are charged with ending it, the same people who refuse to lay any of our current problems on the Clinton administration will be similarly constrained from tallying the mess the Dems would make of it to the Bush ledger.

It would be Saigon and Cambodia all over again, for which history is beginning to correctly see as the Democrat fiascos they were.

[Busyman™]

WTF are you on about Mr Partisan? You are talking about Dems when he was talking internal squabling. Where the hell did get blame from?

You can't help yourself. It's a Repub vs. Dem world for everyfuckingthing.

It was as simple as "Support our cause and we'll support yours" with little regard for what is necessarily right (I'll add to that) especially for a President who's on his way out.

Aren't your Dems here (public mandate in hand, or so they say) to save the U.S. and the world from Bush?

Let them get on with it, then, as you would have them do.

Honestly, and you must admit this, because it is true:

They are totally bereft of any ideas they can call their own, and live in mortal fear of our involvement in the war continuing to any significant extent beyond the Bush presidency, because if the Dems are charged with ending it, the same people who refuse to lay any of our current problems on the Clinton administration will be similarly constrained from tallying the mess the Dems would make of it to the Bush ledger.

It would be Saigon and Cambodia all over again, for which history is beginning to correctly see as the Democrat fiascos they were.

My Dems? Well have you have minor point in that I have hope with the Dems compared to the Repubs....by a large margin.

Now if the Repubs would basically fuck off that would be great. Why the fuck they would block ethics reform? Bereft of ethics? If not, what was the sticking point?

Regarding your last, you can't help but lay blame on the Clinton admin for everything. Take some fucking vicarious responsibilty for your party fucking up. Your are like the spokesman for a company that got caught on camera dumping toxic waste in a swimming pool. Partisan to a fault.

Any President, Dem or Repub will have a boatload of Bush mess to clean up.
The main clean up from the Clinton admin....jizz.

[vidcc]

So the lobby reform bill passed the Senate on January 18th, by a vote of 96-2 , and a reform bill passed the House on May 24th by a vote of 396-22, but no further movement on the bill had been possible. Why not? Because Republicans in the Senate blocked it by filibustering the motion to go to conference. (they filibustered a bill that passed 92-2 and 396-22 ) Simplified "conference" is the bit where they join versions of bills from the house and senate into one bill for the president to sign (for those that don't know)

To get this reform into legislation the Democratic leaders today used a tactic to bypass the conference stage. They decided to agree on a compromise version and have both chambers vote on it, only they're not doing it in a setting they're calling a conference committee. They're just deciding to do it. So there's no motion to go to conference needed.

That bill passed the house today and is now off to the senate where oh what a surprise a republican senator (Ted Stevens ) has vowed to put a hold on it.

Incidentally the home of this ethics reform blocking senator was raided yesterday by the FBI and IRS and he is also being investigated over suspicious earmarks.

[Busyman™]

So the lobby reform bill passed the Senate on January 18th, by a vote of 96-2 , and a reform bill passed the House on May 24th by a vote of 396-22, but no further movement on the bill had been possible. Why not? Because Republicans in the Senate blocked it by filibustering the motion to go to conference. (they filibustered a bill that passed 92-2 and 396-22 ) Simplified "conference" is the bit where they join versions of bills from the house and senate into one bill for the president to sign (for those that don't know)

To get this reform into legislation the Democratic leaders today used a tactic to bypass the conference stage. They decided to agree on a compromise version and have both chambers vote on it, only they're not doing it in a setting they're calling a conference committee. They're just deciding to do it. So there's no motion to go to conference needed.

That bill passed the house today and is now off to the senate where oh what a surprise a republican senator (Ted Stevens ) has vowed to put a hold on it.

Incidentally the home of this ethics reform blocking senator was raided yesterday by the FBI and IRS and he is also being investigated over suspicious earmarks.

Maybe someone should make a thread about Alaskan Republican congressman.

I remember Don Young earmarking 10 mil for a Florida project that no elected official in Florida asked for. The residents didn't want it either.

I think that if I don't have The Distinguished Gentlemen in my collection I will get it.

I remember Eddie Murphy saying something about that the cons he was pulling on the street paled in comparison to what happens in congress but the difference is that the ones in congress are considered perfectly legal.