It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Democrats reneg in first 100 hours!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   
HOW SHOULD I SAY THIS .... THEY DID IT IN THE FIRST FREAKIN 100 HOURS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ... WHO IN THE HISTORY HAS BEEN SO BLATANT ????




posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Marg6043
We the people has lost the power over these rats a long time ago.

I wouldn't really say that. People with power...are still people.

This is just the reason that people need to learn who their voting for...dont judge by one tv ad, do a little homework and see who has the best track record.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 10:16 PM
link   
I'm surprised they reneged too. The Dems usually bend over backwards to avoid appearing totally self absorbed like the Reps. Call a Dem tax and spend and they try to balance the budget. Call them cut and run and they call for a draft. The republicans went to far so its the Dems job to try to mollify the serfs (while they essentally continue the same policies of the Reps.) Yeah you know like 2 sides--------



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 10:20 PM
link   
so, because the democrats are actually playing hardball and not letting the republicans have as much say as they've had for however many years, they've "renegged"

come on
it's no different than what the republicans did when they first got back in control



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 11:20 PM
link   
*cough* Republicans still have control over the Senate and the White House *cough*

[edit on 5-1-2007 by Soitenly]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soitenly
*cough* Republicans still have control over the Senate and the White House *cough*

[edit on 5-1-2007 by Soitenly]


no, the senate is 51-49 for democrats...

hell, they even swore in a democrat as senate pro temp today

so now both the second and third person in line in the event of bush's death are democrats



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
I have fantasies of an IMPEACHED George and dick and the Democrats are letting me down big time.
They also have not cut the funding for the Bush War, and frankly, now I am convinced that the two parties are really one. That little bit of doubt i had is gone.


"Fantasy" pretty correctly sums up this post.

The Democrats made historic gains in the Congress last year, but even given that, there simply aren't the votes to impeach Bush. You might as well be disappointed with the Democrats, because they can't block out the sun.

I mean, what, it's been like a WHOLE week now?

If you're ready to cut the party lose after a week, then good riddance, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

The simple truth is that unless the Republicans themselves initiate the impeachment proceedings, it's impossible to remove Bush from office.

Also, you put the troops lives in danger if you cut off the funding. The administration has to be pressured into withdrawing, anything else endangers lives.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
HOW SHOULD I SAY THIS .... THEY DID IT IN THE FIRST FREAKIN 100 HOURS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ... WHO IN THE HISTORY HAS BEEN SO BLATANT ????


Actually, the Republicans are depending on the Democrats to show mercy, and change the House rules BACK to what they were before. You know, when the Republicans when power mad, and eliminated the rights of the minority party.

The Democrats simply said, "Sure, we'll do it. When we get around to it".



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Wow, a politician renegs on his promise! Next thing you are going to tell me is that the meat in sausages is not of the highest quality.

The Democrats did not win big this November as much as the Republicans lost. People did not vote for the Democrats because the Democrats are wonderful, but rather because the Republicans have been doing a horrible job the past few years.

The Democrats won because at this momen in time, they are less sleazy and incompetant than the Republicans, nay, they have not had as many recent opportunities as the Republicans to be sleazy and incompetant. Now that they are in power, it is just a matter of time until the Democrats screw things up. The Democrats screw ups may not be as huge as the Republicans recent screw ups, but they will be unacceptable screw ups nonetheless. Both parties are full of sleazy dirtbags that only serve the interests of those affluent enough to cut $3000 checks to eat a dinner.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by brimstone735
The administration has to be pressured into withdrawing, anything else endangers lives.

We should not withdraw, Iraq is going pretty good. Theres no reason to not stay the course. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, etc, all like to report the America is failing, and that Iraq is a disaster...which is untrue.

The death toll only seems high cause they report it daily...and without giving other examples....Like 1200 americans are murdered in the US every month.

The death toll in Iraq is very low when compared to previous wars....its just back then they (the military) have the media working against them.
And today a huge majority of the mainstream media is left wing.

Iraq has 18 provinces, and out of them, 3 are 100% only and completely under Iraqi control, and out of the 18, 3 other provinces still have violence...such as carbombs and IED's etc.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
We should not withdraw, Iraq is going pretty good.


Yeah. See, here's a tip for having a reality based discussion. Don't start a post by saying, "We should not withdraw, Iraq is going pretty good".

Because, you lost me after 9 words.

Iraq is a disaster, and probably the greatest military and strategic mistake of the las 50 years. The death toll seems high, because it's high. Your assumption that there is a "lack" of violence, or the "illusion" of violence, and the MSM is painting an unfairly bleak picture is absurd.

Absurd.

In any other war, American casualities would be nearly 15,000. The only reason it's not, is because of advances made in emergency triage. (And I'm being convervative, and cutting the number of wounded GIs in half) We don't even count the number of Iraqi security forces that have been killed, which is somewhere in the neighborhood of 16,000

That makes 35,000 allied troops either dead, or severaly wounded.

But, hey, some people really like war. Some people have a fetish for it. Some people would support a pointless, armed incursion into DENMARK, because bombs blowing up really gets them off. For the rest of us, we're trying to put the pieces of our broken military back together, so we'll be able to defend ourselves with something more than rocks and stones.

Maybe it's time you turned the talk radio off, exited out of the conservative blogs, and returned to a reality based community.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Is a misunderstanding of what funds for Iraq will be cut.

First of all the millions of dollar for reconstruction that was awarded during the 3 years of ths war, tax payer money, either went missing, went into the hands of Halliburton and subsidiaries or just wasn't there.

The congress wants accountability for that money.

The reserves of Oil that Saddam had prior to invasion also magically disappear during occupation.

US has to buy oil to support Iraq right now when Iraq has oil own its own, pretty funny right, again tax payer money.

The troops already in Iraq has their yearly funding allocated.

The 45 thousand troops that Bush will request this week to keep making them targets are the ones that will need additional budget to support.

That is when congress may say no to the additional troops and no funding.

Plus more tax payer money for again another attempt to reconstruction.

That can also be stop.

Iraq is Bushes problem and his administration, we the American people already voted their majority out of congress because of this war.

So that means get the heck out of that country and forget the oil!!!!!

Let the oil barons get their own money and their own mercenaries to pay to go fight for that oil.


And BTW isn't lovely when people post how nice our troops lives are not so big lost compare to other wars?

As long as is not them in the line of duty or their love ones.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   
I am pleased for what its worth that the Democrats are giving
Bush a hard time about sending the troops, providing it isnt some "show" for the Americans. I would be extremely pleased if they forced him out of office. Its never too late. Never. Just think, its NOT too late for Bush to act up and destroy half a world in the next year and a half.
Or as i've suspected before, is this all an act?



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   
I like how they keep delaying their first 100 hours.

They took today off for some football game and they all have next Monday off.

If the U.S. was a company and I owned it Id fire evryone in Washington.

Lets bring in some Mexicans. Theyll work 1000 times harder for less pay.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   
The last congress worked less that 100 days. You know how important records are, maybe they're trying to set a new one. But getting less accomplished than that congress will be exceedingly difficult.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   
This is the ATS consensus: 'Ok, Europe, China and Russia, you take all the oil, we obviously do not need oil. We will instead drive buggies pulled by horses, have no need for plastics or airplanes or tranes or pharmaceuticals/medicine or a military to protect us from any invaders, so please please please do not attack us while we are hopelessly defenseless. We are so much better than anyone else, we do not need the lifeblood that made us the industrial empire'.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soitenly
This is the ATS consensus: 'Ok, Europe, China and Russia, you take all the oil, we obviously do not need oil. We will instead drive buggies pulled by horses, have no need for plastics or airplanes or tranes or pharmaceuticals/medicine or a military to protect us from any invaders, so please please please do not attack us while we are hopelessly defenseless. We are so much better than anyone else, we do not need the lifeblood that made us the industrial empire'.




First of all the US has plenty of petroleum to take care of its non-energy needs like plastics, chemicals for industrial uses, etc. Oil is not the only way to make a car go down the street. There are viable alternative energy methods that not only could be develped, but already exist. This country needs to overhaul its energy and transportation infrastructure, so it can accombodate things like electric cars. Instead, the US is content to piss away billions of dollars to halliburton and drive our fat butts around the suburbs in gas guzzling SUV's.

If the Bush administration were decent people, they would have used 9-11 as a rallying call to fight the terrorists by hitting them in the pocket book. They would have initiated a new Manhatan project which would get America energy independent by overhauling its energy and transportation infrastructure and developing alternative energy technologies.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   
They also promised a "5 day workweek." Guess what? They had the day off today!


Enjoy the next 2 years, Dems, because that is all you get!

I got 3 words for Republicans: Gridlock and Filibuster and VETO! DO NOT compromise with these people, unless you enjoyed the results of 2006!



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
I got 3 words for Republicans: Gridlock and Filibuster and VETO! DO NOT compromise with these people, unless you enjoyed the results of 2006!


We'll get back control of this country if we have to destroy it in the process! Brilliant strategy.

Political agreement with the Republican party aside, the smart thing for that party to do is to very aggressively assert themselves as the voice of reason so that the Democrats ignore them only at their own peril.

I say this because right wrong or indifferent, the Republicans have been killing the Democrats in white house elections since Nixon, winning 2 terms to the Democrats 1 since the '68 election, and managing to pull off some serious damage control against Clinton by retaking congress in '94 and holding it, thus preventing the Democrats from too strongly pursuing an agenda that voters could embrace.

The Democrats are in a strong position to get another chance in 2008, so if the Republicans want to again stave off a rebirth of the Democratic party they need to narrow the margin in the house in the 2008 election so that if they lose the White House they can put the new president up against a hostile congress after just 2 years.

That means establishing a positive Republican agenda, not unlike they did in order to win in '94. Obstructing only makes the Democrats look like they have a plan and need more support from the people to push it through. Beating the Democrats to the punch on addressing important issues and compromising enough to pass that legislation, even in imperfect form, will give them something to run on in '08 and '10.

Partisan politics has lost sight of the fundamental truth that if you improve voter's lives, you will win elections. No amount of partisan ideology is going to make a voter get rid of someone who is good for their pocket book, or make them keep someone who is bad for it. If Republicans don't embrace these lessons, which Bush 41 paid a high price to teach them, they'll be staring at another Clinton so fast it'll make their head spin, which right or wrong, they will not like.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 07:04 PM
link   
I imagine that now that bush wants more troops to protect the American oil interest in Iraq . . . I mean to keep the Iraqi government from collapsing until they handle their oil resources to the US oil barons and private interest . . . I mean . . . to protect the Iraqi people


I wonder how much money is going to be pass over by the lobbyist in Washington to buy the members of congress into getting the funding for more troops.

After all we can no let Iraqi without a share of capitalism.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join