115
Another Democratic Surrender : Swingers Discussion 82923
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsAnother Democratic Surrender
TOPIC: Another Democratic Surrender
Created by: perfectmatch The original post for this thread was deleted.
GoTo Page: 1 2
 1 to 10 of 15   End
User Details are only visible to members.
perf,

i love "cunts" :-)

Philadelphia PA
 
 
Username hidden
(5326 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
DebJack

"Oh, yeah, my post, 3 lines, your response, 2 paragraphs. "

Didn't know I was limited to a certain number of characters in my posts. But I just took a look at your profile and you been here since June 2003 and I've been here since Nov 2003. So ruffly the same amount of time but you've got 5 times the number of posts as myself.

Now not that I "never" make a drive by post but you make quite a few 1, 2 & 3 line posts to poke that stick in the hornets nest for a little play time. I however, generally (not always) try to explain my position or opinion.

Have a great vacation! LOL

St Petersburg FL
 
 
Username hidden
(989 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Surrender - Cheap Trick, great song!!

oh, it's not that kinda topic but another dems are pussies thread... got it

Philadelphia PA
 
 
Username hidden
(5326 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
DebJack

"Pete, why are you making so much of my post? "

I'm not making a lot of your post, as I see it I've responded to only 1 post of yours in this thread. And my only point is not that of disagreement. My point is that simply that both parties have done "exactly" the same thing, nothing "new" here. And nothing "new" that WE have paid for these stunts. Your post suggests that the democrat have broken new ground and they have not.

St Petersburg FL
 
 
Username hidden
(989 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
WASHINGTON - The White House is pushing hard to buy time for its Iraq strategy, offering Congress unusual access to President Bush's top military and diplomatic advisers.

ADVERTISEMENT About 200 lawmakers were invited to the Pentagon for a classified question-and-answer session on Thursday with Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador there. The two men were expected to brief lawmakers via satellite from Baghdad.

Bush's new war adviser, Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, also was to be in the room.

Later in the day, Crocker was scheduled to testify publicly before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also by video link.

The officials were expected to make the case that some progress has been made in Iraq since Bush ordered the deployment of some 30,000 extra troops earlier this year. The officials also were expected to argue it is too early to tell whether the strategy is working, and that members of Congress should hold off on demanding change until at least September.

The briefings cap off a week of contentious Senate debate on the war and a public relations blitz by the administration to shore up GOP support. Republican support is crucial for Bush because of the narrow margins in the Senate and the minority party's ability to block any legislation with a filibuster.

So far, GOP lawmakers have been mostly united in rejecting Democratic demands to set a deadline for troop withdrawals. On Wednesday, they helped scuttle a bill by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., that would have ordered troops to start leaving this fall and end major combat by April 30.

The legislation was backed by a slim majority of senators in a 52-47 vote, but fell short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate and end a GOP-threatened filibuster.

On Wednesday as senators cast their vote, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice shuttled between meetings with members on Capitol Hill to make the administration's case for the war. Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, has made similar rounds, including a private briefing on Iraq last week for more than a dozen GOP senators.

Saint Louis MO
 
 
Username hidden
(12439 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
So shelving appropriations for the troops is OK? Fuck the cots what about the troops and their families? What happened to "we support the troops no matter what"?

Saint Louis MO
 
 
Username hidden
(12439 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I don't particularly think the degree to which a party runs on a certain issue is germaine to my point. In addition, I don't know where your 48 hours comes from anyway. Reed called for an "overnight" session not a 48 hour session. The topic does not negate the "fustration" of one party or the other. The point is you defined a quitter.....I pointed out that in 2003 the republicans did exactly the same thing and by your definition were quitters then also. And would not the fillibustering party be in control of the length of time anyway...which in this case the fillibustering party was the republicans. When the fillibustering party ceases to continue then there logically must be a vote to end debate which is the purpose of the fillibuster....to prevent a vote.

St Petersburg FL
 
 
Username hidden
(989 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Oh really? Quitters, hmmm

From the New York Times:

"Angered by Filibusters on Nominees, Republicans Stage Their Own Protest E-MAIL Print Permissions Save By NEIL A. LEWIS Published: November 13, 2003 The Senate on Wednesday began an extraordinary 30-hour through-the-night session initiated by Republicans to dramatize what they say is the unfairness of the Democrats in blocking four of President Bush's judicial nominees.

The event featured some but not all of the features of marathon debates of bygone days -- cots outside the chamber for weary orators, for example, but no senators claiming they were equipped with personal plumbing devices to allow them to hold the floor at length without pause. While the procedures may have been civilized, the feelings were bitter; Republicans called the exercise an important and needed display of ''justice for judges'' while Democrats said it was a stunt and a preposterous waste of time. "

hmmm

1. "an extraordinary 30 hour session".....guess they couldn't make it 48 either 2. "to dramatize the unfairness of the democrats in blocking 4 judicial nominees" 3. "cots outside the chamber for weary orators" 4. "Republicans called the exercise an ** important and needed ** display of ''justice for judges'' " and 5. "Democrats said it was a stunt and a preposterous waste of time." - kinda sounds like the republicans today huh?

Quess the 2003 republicans were quitters also for something they thought was so important and must blow in the wind like ever other senator in Washington.

St Petersburg FL
 
 
Username hidden
(989 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
DebJack

"LOL Sen. The cot, or huge rollout bed thing, was merely a publicity stunt WE paid for in an attempt by the democrats to shame the Republicans. Didn't work,,, again. LMAO. "

Read my response below.....didn't work for the republicans in 2003 either! And we paid for that stunt also!

St Petersburg FL
 
 
Username hidden
(989 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Sen

I agree to a point. But this thread was started to blast democrats for showmanship when in fact the republicans have done the same thing. I found another article quoting a republican senator who basically asked the question....Why? Saying the cot thing has been done "many" times in the past and "never" accomplishes anything.

The republicans said they were protesting a fillibuster in 2003 over judicial appointee obstruction by democrats. The democrats say they are "protesting" obstructionism by the republicans. Obviously, the democrats want the citizens of this country to see that they are trying to get a timetable for withdrawal / redeployment and that it is republicans obstructing the process of debate. Exactly the same reasoning followed by republicans in 2003 over judicial appointees. The republicans in 2003 also went a step further and threatened to change the fillibuster rules......bet at this point they are happy as punch that they didn't......otherwise it would be harder for them (republicans) to fillibuster now......wouldn't it?

St Petersburg FL
 
 
Username hidden
(989 posts)
GoTo Page: 1 2
 1 to 10 of 15   End
TOPIC: Another Democratic Surrender