Back to the darawing board. Farm subsidies need to be curtailed and the food stamp prgram needs to be reformed. Corporate farmers getting price supports and the ridiculous sugar program need to go. And every time I see an overweight person with a link card buying junk food with my money it turns my stomach.
Agreed. It’s about time that some people in Washington stood up to the outrageous spending of our tax dollars while we are still having economic problems in this country. We need to learn to say “no” to spending programs until we get more of it under control. We can’t keep borrowing money to pay ongoing expenditures. That is insanity. There has to be a limit.
Agreed. Rusty, the problem with any legislation that is proposed is that representatives add so many amendments to it, that it bears little resemblance to the original intent. They can’t seem to pass anything without someone messing with it and then others object to the amendments. They should pass a rule that any legislation proposed should be voted on its merits up or down. No amendments, no changes. If it is good legislation, it should pass. I am not holding my breath that there will be any changes in voting on bills in Congress. They fell in love with Amendments many years ago and love to attach them to every bill even if it is on a completely different subject.
Dare we say “Pork” added to a Farm Bill? Both sides are guilty of that for decades. The biggest offenders seem to be RINO’s and liberal Democrats who proudly proclaim that the bill cannot stand on its own so let’s get some extra goodies into it.
Why were they trying to do two things that are unrelated to the other in the same bill?
If our politicians really have respect and confidence in the moral judgement of the citizens who elected them then they will stop trying to hide things in the bills they introduce and waste our time and money working on.
A law should be passed ” The one issue, one bill law”.
So that we citizens can have simplicity and understanding of what our inept lawmakers are trying to create as the law of the land.
In typical Republican style, they once again blame the Democrats:
House Majority Leader Cantor released a statement saying House Democrats “shamefully chose politics over progress and meaningful reform.”
That’s right folks, even with a majority in the House, it is the Democrats’ fault. All they needed was every Republican to vote for the bill and it would have passed. Were the Republicans who voted “No” also chosing politics over progress and meaningful reform?
I do not agree with Nancy Pelosi usually, but she hit the nail on the head:
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi mocked the Republicans’ charge that Democrats pulled the rug out at the last minute, telling reporters, “If we ever came to you when we had the majority and said we didn’t pass a bill because we didn’t get enough Republican votes, well that’s really silly. It’s sad, it’s juvenile, it’s unprofessional, it’s amateur hour.”
Hey Ron, has there been a time in the last five years that Obama, his administration and the democrats haven’t blamed the republicans? I agree with Pelosi on this one, but her saying it is like the teapot calling the kettle black.
I would like to see both sides play the blame game much less, even though sometimes it is warranted. Most situations each side can make some case for blaming the other. I just thought this would have been an opportunity for the Republicans to take some responsibility and say that they should have been able to get this passed even without a single Democrat voting for it. I would have had much more respect for their party had that taken that route.
So your argument is that republicans should all vote per party line 100% of the time? And simulteanously they should be “bi partisan”. What a crock Ron. You’re bad at keeping track of politics.
And secondarilly, if 80% of democrats block a bill, and 20% of republicans disagree with republicans that it was the republican’s fault it didn’t go through? That’s all it takes Ron. Good luck winning over 20% of the democrats, and good luck not losing at least 10-20% of the republicans.
Let’s not forget that even while they had the majority Nancy was playing this card the whole time about how many bills the republicans blocked. Man, those democrats should have pushed it through, and if they didn’t, man, they failed at their jobs right?
Bob,
My argument was for the Republicans to stop blaming others since they are the party of personal responsibility. No, they should not just vote per party line, but when you cannot get a bill passed with a majority, do not blame others.
They obviously did not do their homework and allowed amendments that turned off too many Republicans and Democrats. That would be Speaker Boehner’s fault.
Please show me where I said Republicans should be bi-partisan all the time. Since you so good at keeping track you should be able to find that post in one of the IJ articles.
Please show me where I have ever supported Pelosi outside of her recent comments. When she blamed Republicans when she could not get enough Democrats to vote for the bill I blamed her, not Republicans.
Besides, I thought the Republicans were much better and more mature than the Democrats. Sounds they are not that much different.
June 25, 2013 at 2:29 pm
Sargeant Major says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Great post- bob
June 25, 2013 at 2:56 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Sarge,
Glad to see your still alive.
You challenged me, I responded requesting evidence, then you went silent. I was getting a little concerned.
When are you going to respond to my posts in this and the “New ‘Obamacare’ Exchanges Could Miss Enrollment Deadline: GAO” articles.
And if you see Agent, he owes me some responses and evidence as well.
June 25, 2013 at 2:58 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I would like to apologize to everyone for typing “your” instead of “you’re”.
June 26, 2013 at 11:34 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob, only a short few years ago when the Democrats had an overwhelming majority in both houses, they seemed to have a lot of trouble passing the vaunted Healthcare Bill. They kept blaming the Republicans for stalling the “progress”. In reality, the Republicans couldn’t stop anything from being passed. The problem was within their own party with many thinking it wasn’t such a great idea. Lo and behold, along came the Cornhusker kickback, the Louisiana Purchase and power political pressure on the Blue Dog Democrats to vote for the abomination and even at that, it had to be passed in the middle of the night without reading it. Then, in the mid terms that followed, the Blue Dogs were sent packing, but Nancy threw them a wonderful going away party for falling on the sword.
June 26, 2013 at 12:37 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I don’t think anyone condones the “blame game” from either side.
June 21, 2013 at 3:29 pm
jay says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Even the Insurance Journal can’t see to prevent itself from editorializing as it writes that the Tea Party-influenced fiscal conservatives ‘disrupt’ legislation. Disrupt is a pejorative term. They have as much right to influence the legislative process as the people on the left who call for more public benefits.
I agree with you regarding their right to influence legislation. I am guessing that was put in the article because those are the Republicans that voted “No” and is the reason why a Republican bill did not pass with a Republican majority.
I agree with you regarding amendments. This activity is something that should have been eliminated years ago. The bill is what the bill is. If you do not like it, present your own bill.
As I asked before, what pork?
Please list all of the pork and who added it to the bill.
Ron Said- “If you are going to make a statement that can be supported by facts, be prepared to present those facts and the source.”
What a laugher. You and Celtica along with Libby are the worst for making statements you can’t back up. Democrats, as part of their political platform lie and make up stuff, change the subject and place blame when the get boxed in a corner. Just look at Benghazi.
Name one statement I have made that I was unable to back up when asked.
You said, “Democrats, as part of their political platform lie and make up stuff, change the subject and place blame when the get boxed in a corner.” And Republicans don’t?
I neither lie nor change the subject in any of my posts. You are very fond of saying that, Sarge, but in usual fashion when asked – you can’t back it up with actual facts. YOU are the pot calling the kettle black.
Eh? I do not read EVERY response to a subject when I have moved on to another topic. If I haven’t responded past the request to do so, there’s a pretty gosh darn good chance I haven’t read it. Some do have a life outside the IJ forum. And jobs to attend to.
But please do not let this stop you from using Bengazi as a weapon for your own political purposes. As for Benghazi, it was a tragedy — but no more so than 9-11.
Should they have happened? No.
Did it happen? Yes.
You’re an idiot. There were no lies about weapons of mass destruction.
If you want me to dismantel your agrument again, then let’s go Celitica.
Who fabricated the lies about the weapons of mass destruction?
Which country/ies collected the info? Was it unanimous in their findings? Were the findings compiled by the Bush Administration?
Answer the questions, then shut up. I’m tired of your liberal left’s slant on the Iraq war.
The answers: Unanimous info, including info from the CIA version of England. Did Bush compile the info? No. Did Bush alter the info? No.
I’m sick and tired of your bullcrap.
Weapons of mass destruction were not the reason for our entering the war with Iraq.
And further: Saddam was harboring Al Quieda operatives, was breaking UN Sanctions, and had killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. Al Gore spoke in 1991 (when he and Bill were running against HW) about the fact that we had “every” not some, “every” piece of information that said we had to act.
So what changed? How did Bush W make that report? Please explain? And while we are on weapons of destruction, WTF was with Clinton’s you will not defy the will of the world speech? He has used weapons of mass destruction and will use them again? What was that bombing of Iraq?
You’re a damn fool, in dire need of a history lesson.
Remind me: Was Bin Laden found inside or outside of the axis of evil?
Bush W was bold, and a lot of things, but Liar he was not. Especially regarding the Iraq war.
>Bob Said: You’re an idiot. There were no lies about weapons of mass destruction
1, Anyone who starts their argument with an insult is not up to a debate.
2, Anyone who doesn’t think there were no lies about WMD is definitely not to any debate.
So go get pissed and call me a lefty. But first remind me who actually was looking for Bin Laden. Because it sure wasn’t Bush.
Hey Sargeant, Your confirming utubes will cut no ice with Celtica or Metric Ron. They can see and hear all their liberal Democratic leaders saying the same thing and will probably say the Republicans faked the videos because they just cannot believe the evidence.
OK, Agent. I looked at the first YouTube on my lunch break. All those statements by Democratic Congressman during 2002 and 2003 were based on “briefings” given to them by NSA and CIA.
As outlined in my comprehensive list of LIES includes the following:
“A half-dozen former CIA agents investigating prewar intelligence have found that a secret Pentagon committee, set up by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in October 2001, manipulated reams of intelligence information prepared by the spy agency on the so-called Iraqi threat and then delivered it to top White House officials who used it to win support for a war in Iraq.”
They were fed the same misinformation as the American people. I am starting to doubt your comprehension skills, too. Start a different arguement, rather than the Democrats supported the POTUS based on misleading “intellegience.” Of course they did. And we did, too. Only to find out he LIED.
June 26, 2013 at 1:17 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Sarge – even though your post was to Celtica, I have watched both videos. Granted, I have exceptional comprehensive skills, but I did not see anything in either video to contradict my assertions about Dubya and the Iraq war.
In the first, Congress based their statements on “briefings” from the White House, which we know now were using falsified intellegience.
In the second, Clinton never comes out and says he knows Hussein still has WMD’s, just that he had used them in the past and the purpose of the UN inspections was to guarantee he did not have them anymore.
The international intelligence community said there were WMD’s in Iraq, Bill Clinton said there were WMD’s in Iraq, Hillary Clinton said there were WMD’s in Iraq, John Kerry said there were WMD’s in Iraq, Ted “the Hero of Chappaquiddick” said there were WMD’s in Iraq.
The UN “Inspectors” never found the WMD’s because they always told Saddam where they were going to look next.
Before President Bush pulled the trigger in Iraq there were huge convoys of military trucks headed for Syria.
Don’t accuse GWB of lying when all of your socialist heroes were saying the same thing.
The difference is that while all of the above thought there were weapons of mass destruction, only Bush used it as a pretext for war. The others simply weren’t sure — and did not pull the trigger, so to speak. Too bad so many people had to die for a shoddy decision at least and a lie at worst. Itchy trigger finger, that Bush.
The UN told Saddam ahead of time where he should hide the non existent WMD’s – ??? Good one. Sad though.
The difference, Water Bug, is that they all thought there were WMD’s because Bush and Cheney provided “intellegience” they knew to be false at the time. In other words, they lied. There I said it. Now all you Bush-lovers can thumb me down – Again.
Wrong. And you have nothing to back up what you just said.
If Bush W knew it was wrong info, then how? What info did he have disproving it? How did the entire congress and senate miss it? Bush W does not have control over Britain’s release of info, which everyone there had access to.
LIE #1: “The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program … Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment need for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.” – President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.
FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic that, “You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that’s just a lie.”
LIE #2: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” – President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.
FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: “They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie,” he told the New Republic, anonymously. “They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly.”
LIE #3: “We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” – Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on “Meet the Press.”
FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.
LIE #4: “[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade.” – CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening’s speech by President Bush.
FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early ’90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.
LIE #5: “We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases … Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.” – President Bush, Oct. 7.
FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq’s control and patrolled by Allied war planes.
LIE #6: “We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States.” – President Bush, Oct. 7.
FACT: Said drones can’t fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq’s drone-building program wasn’t much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn’t a “manned aerial vehicle” just a scary way to say “plane”?
LIE #7: “We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they’re weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established.” – President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.
FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.
LIE #8: “Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.” – Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.
FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet our own intelligence reports show that these stocks – if they existed – were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.
LIE #9: “We know where [Iraq’s WMD] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.” – Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.
FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.
LIE #10: “Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited.” – President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.
FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were are potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts – including the State Department’s intelligence wing in a report released this week – have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair’s embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were, facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.
A half-dozen former CIA agents investigating prewar intelligence have found that a secret Pentagon committee, set up by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in October 2001, manipulated reams of intelligence information prepared by the spy agency on the so-called Iraqi threat and then delivered it to top White House officials who used it to win support for a war in Iraq.
How about you view the utubes Sargeant provided to see what your own leaders said about this? It is from their own lips Libby.
June 26, 2013 at 12:39 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I can’t watch YouTube at work, Agent. No speakers. How about responding to my list above???
June 27, 2013 at 10:27 pm
Sargeant Major says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So libby, what are your sources ( as Ron would say)? You can’t mean Salon.com? a left wing liberal rag headquartered in San Francisco. That is almost as bad as your offensive dig at black people and your link to the KKK website. This is nothing.
June 28, 2013 at 9:37 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I made no offensive dig at black people, Sarge. Nice try.
June 28, 2013 at 9:42 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And my source was a Human Right advocacy. So I’m sure it’s someone you never heard of and wouldn’t believe anyway since it did not come from FoxNews.
June 29, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Sarge,
It is good to see that I am rubbing off on people to challenge others to provide sources. I would have even more respect for you if you also challenged those on your side (Agent comes to mind) to also provide their sources.
July 2, 2013 at 5:36 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I actually directed every one of the above, but it didn’t post (likely too many links or an error)
Let me just put it shortly:
Many of what you have ARE NOT directly from the word of Bush W but rather other people who work in intelligence. That would be called being “wrong” or acting on false intelligence.
Moving on to others: Some are just bluntly incorrect. Stating that there was no evidence that Iraq was AGAIN involved with Al Quieda is foolish. They were at one point. That is evidence all it’s own. Besides which, we DO have evidence.
Now the rest I won’t direct, because your list was filled with false information, and or other people’s words not Bush W’s.
Bush W did not control those entities which gave him information.
June 26, 2013 at 12:49 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby,
Good luck getting Agent to respond to anything from someone other Bob, Sarge, FFA, or any other person on their side.
Maybe he is having difficulty comprehending what you wrote. Not like that has stopped him from responding with an inaccurate assertion in relation to what was written in the past.
Libby & Ron, I can’t force you to see the evidence in front of you that Sargeant provided. You would rather promote your own views on what happened which has been thoroughly distorted by the liberal press and networks. Everybody from Clinton, Allbright, Jay Rockefellor, Teddy Kennedy on down the list of big liberal politicians were in complete agreement on Sadam and his ambitions and all voted for action. Libby, pull up the utube on your home computer if you get a chance and view the truth.
June 26, 2013 at 1:00 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I know Ron. He loves to post the same comments over and over hoping someone will pay attention when all he sounds like is a broken record. He is so intent on his response, I sincerely doubt he even reads our posts before thumbing them down. Therefore, they rarely respond to anything we have said.
June 26, 2013 at 1:01 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Sorry “Therefore, HE rarely responds to anything we have said.” Sigh…
June 26, 2013 at 1:03 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent,
What evidence do you want me to see? I have not made any comments relating the lies leading up to the Iraq war. I want evidence showing the country’s economy has gotten worse since President Obama took office. I understand some states have had issues, but that falls on their leaders.
I have been asking for you to provide evidence in response to several of your posts. Mostly those that have distorted my words or failed to comprehend what I wrote.
June 26, 2013 at 1:05 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent: Since you obviously don’t actually read my posts, I’ll post it again:
“OK, Agent. I looked at the first YouTube on my lunch break. All those statements by Democratic Congressman during 2002 and 2003 were based on “briefings” given to them by NSA and CIA.
As outlined in my comprehensive list of LIES includes the following:
“A half-dozen former CIA agents investigating prewar intelligence have found that a secret Pentagon committee, set up by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in October 2001, manipulated reams of intelligence information prepared by the spy agency on the so-called Iraqi threat and then delivered it to top White House officials who used it to win support for a war in Iraq.”
They were fed the same misinformation as the American people. I am starting to doubt your comprehension skills, too. Start a different arguement, rather than the Democrats supported the POTUS based on misleading “intellegience.” Of course they did. And we did, too. Only to find out he LIED.”
Again, come up with an argument other than the Democrats voted for it, too. Of course they did. Based on the lies told by Bush and Cheney. Please respond to that argument and quit with the “nah, nah, nah, nah-nah.”
June 26, 2013 at 1:21 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And Agent – the Iraq war lies are my fight. You can leave others out of it unless they care to join in. Celtica???
June 26, 2013 at 2:04 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Hey Ron – you asked a question on another article about what changed in Iraq’s culture from 1991 to 2003. No-one answered, but I am curious to know. Was it the No-Fly Zone initiated as part of the “end” of the Gulf War?
June 26, 2013 at 2:13 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby,
I can’t imagine how a no-fly zone would impact people’s hatred toward each other within a country.
My assertion is that nothing changed and VP Cheney knew it was going to be as bad as it turned out. He just decided to mislead everybody regarding how difficult, costly and deadly an invasion would be.
That has always been my major disagreement with President Bush and his administration. I understand other people having issues, but I think a lot those are a result of having to make difficult decisions as President.
June 26, 2013 at 3:52 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I didn’t get through the whole 7 pages of this article, but it was pretty interesting and kind of outlines the chain-of-events leading up to the Iraq War. I think it only strengthens my assertions about Iraq being a Bush holdover from the Gulf War.
Ron, I will be glad to respond. I have put up post after post with links and back up information and you still ask for more info or pretend it was not there. At the same time you, libby or that nitwit Celtica will make some shoot from the hip statement and claim it is gospel. I don’t have time to go back through who knows how many posts to prove you wrong. I can do that going forward.
June 28, 2013 at 9:35 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Wow. 13 “likes” in less than 12 hours. You certainly have a following Sarge. Or you figured out how to inflate your ratings and downgrade others in order to censor them. Nice job!
June 27, 2013 at 5:54 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You won’t get anywhere with either Celtica or Libby since they just don’t believe their eyes or ears and put their own slant on what was stated by their own Democratic leaders at the time.
Celtica, you have a very faulty memory. It was an international joke the way that the UN always told Saddam where they were going to search for WMD’s. While this farce was going on there WERE huge convoys headed to Syria with who knows what in them.
Slick Willie Clinton hurled a couple of missiles at an aspirin factory as his contribution to the war on terror.
You would have let Hitler get away with his deeds rather than take out a purely evil dictator.
Didn’t take long to get off topic and back on the same argument.
Problem with this argument as I see it is no one will ever change their mind and both side think they are right.
Only one that seems to be changing their mind in regards to Obama is Libby. She will always not like Bush.
You are correct, FFA. I have seen the effects of war and it should never be entered into to settle a personal vendetta (Bush). I am not so stubborn, however, to not change my mind when presented with logical information. I will, however, continue to support Obama’s stance on social issues (gay marriage, womens rights, universal healthcare, etc.) as it lines up with mine.
Economically, there is much work to do. But I have said, in all fairness, he inherited a pretty big mess in 2008. And I don’t say that with any reference to Bush at all. It is just fact.
Back to the darawing board. Farm subsidies need to be curtailed and the food stamp prgram needs to be reformed. Corporate farmers getting price supports and the ridiculous sugar program need to go. And every time I see an overweight person with a link card buying junk food with my money it turns my stomach.
Agreed. It’s about time that some people in Washington stood up to the outrageous spending of our tax dollars while we are still having economic problems in this country. We need to learn to say “no” to spending programs until we get more of it under control. We can’t keep borrowing money to pay ongoing expenditures. That is insanity. There has to be a limit.
Agreed. Rusty, the problem with any legislation that is proposed is that representatives add so many amendments to it, that it bears little resemblance to the original intent. They can’t seem to pass anything without someone messing with it and then others object to the amendments. They should pass a rule that any legislation proposed should be voted on its merits up or down. No amendments, no changes. If it is good legislation, it should pass. I am not holding my breath that there will be any changes in voting on bills in Congress. They fell in love with Amendments many years ago and love to attach them to every bill even if it is on a completely different subject.
Dare we say “Pork” added to a Farm Bill? Both sides are guilty of that for decades. The biggest offenders seem to be RINO’s and liberal Democrats who proudly proclaim that the bill cannot stand on its own so let’s get some extra goodies into it.
Agent,
What pork?
“The bill was defeated by House conservatives who said the bill spent too much on food stamps and nutrition programs and House Democrats who opposed both the cuts to those food stamp programs and a GOP-backed amendment that added new work requirements for those applying for assistance.”
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/20/embarrassing-setback-for-house-gop-leaders-with-farm-bill-defeat/
Please list all of the pork and who added it to the bill.
If you are going to make a statement that can be supported by facts, be prepared to present those facts and the source.
I am tired of the RINO complaint. Are Republican voters so uninformed that they continue to vote for candidates who will not vote in their interests?
Why were they trying to do two things that are unrelated to the other in the same bill?
If our politicians really have respect and confidence in the moral judgement of the citizens who elected them then they will stop trying to hide things in the bills they introduce and waste our time and money working on.
A law should be passed ” The one issue, one bill law”.
So that we citizens can have simplicity and understanding of what our inept lawmakers are trying to create as the law of the land.
Sheltowee- You are right on!
Someone needs to pinch you and wake you up from the great dream your having!
In typical Republican style, they once again blame the Democrats:
House Majority Leader Cantor released a statement saying House Democrats “shamefully chose politics over progress and meaningful reform.”
That’s right folks, even with a majority in the House, it is the Democrats’ fault. All they needed was every Republican to vote for the bill and it would have passed. Were the Republicans who voted “No” also chosing politics over progress and meaningful reform?
I do not agree with Nancy Pelosi usually, but she hit the nail on the head:
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi mocked the Republicans’ charge that Democrats pulled the rug out at the last minute, telling reporters, “If we ever came to you when we had the majority and said we didn’t pass a bill because we didn’t get enough Republican votes, well that’s really silly. It’s sad, it’s juvenile, it’s unprofessional, it’s amateur hour.”
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/20/embarrassing-setback-for-house-gop-leaders-with-farm-bill-defeat/?hpt=po_c2
Hey Ron, has there been a time in the last five years that Obama, his administration and the democrats haven’t blamed the republicans? I agree with Pelosi on this one, but her saying it is like the teapot calling the kettle black.
jay,
I would like to see both sides play the blame game much less, even though sometimes it is warranted. Most situations each side can make some case for blaming the other. I just thought this would have been an opportunity for the Republicans to take some responsibility and say that they should have been able to get this passed even without a single Democrat voting for it. I would have had much more respect for their party had that taken that route.
So your argument is that republicans should all vote per party line 100% of the time? And simulteanously they should be “bi partisan”. What a crock Ron. You’re bad at keeping track of politics.
And secondarilly, if 80% of democrats block a bill, and 20% of republicans disagree with republicans that it was the republican’s fault it didn’t go through? That’s all it takes Ron. Good luck winning over 20% of the democrats, and good luck not losing at least 10-20% of the republicans.
Let’s not forget that even while they had the majority Nancy was playing this card the whole time about how many bills the republicans blocked. Man, those democrats should have pushed it through, and if they didn’t, man, they failed at their jobs right?
Bob,
My argument was for the Republicans to stop blaming others since they are the party of personal responsibility. No, they should not just vote per party line, but when you cannot get a bill passed with a majority, do not blame others.
They obviously did not do their homework and allowed amendments that turned off too many Republicans and Democrats. That would be Speaker Boehner’s fault.
Please show me where I said Republicans should be bi-partisan all the time. Since you so good at keeping track you should be able to find that post in one of the IJ articles.
Please show me where I have ever supported Pelosi outside of her recent comments. When she blamed Republicans when she could not get enough Democrats to vote for the bill I blamed her, not Republicans.
Besides, I thought the Republicans were much better and more mature than the Democrats. Sounds they are not that much different.
Great post- bob
Sarge,
Glad to see your still alive.
You challenged me, I responded requesting evidence, then you went silent. I was getting a little concerned.
When are you going to respond to my posts in this and the “New ‘Obamacare’ Exchanges Could Miss Enrollment Deadline: GAO” articles.
And if you see Agent, he owes me some responses and evidence as well.
I would like to apologize to everyone for typing “your” instead of “you’re”.
Bob, only a short few years ago when the Democrats had an overwhelming majority in both houses, they seemed to have a lot of trouble passing the vaunted Healthcare Bill. They kept blaming the Republicans for stalling the “progress”. In reality, the Republicans couldn’t stop anything from being passed. The problem was within their own party with many thinking it wasn’t such a great idea. Lo and behold, along came the Cornhusker kickback, the Louisiana Purchase and power political pressure on the Blue Dog Democrats to vote for the abomination and even at that, it had to be passed in the middle of the night without reading it. Then, in the mid terms that followed, the Blue Dogs were sent packing, but Nancy threw them a wonderful going away party for falling on the sword.
I don’t think anyone condones the “blame game” from either side.
Even the Insurance Journal can’t see to prevent itself from editorializing as it writes that the Tea Party-influenced fiscal conservatives ‘disrupt’ legislation. Disrupt is a pejorative term. They have as much right to influence the legislative process as the people on the left who call for more public benefits.
jay,
I agree with you regarding their right to influence legislation. I am guessing that was put in the article because those are the Republicans that voted “No” and is the reason why a Republican bill did not pass with a Republican majority.
Too many amendments and “Pork” as usual with all legislation.
Agent,
I agree with you regarding amendments. This activity is something that should have been eliminated years ago. The bill is what the bill is. If you do not like it, present your own bill.
As I asked before, what pork?
Please list all of the pork and who added it to the bill.
Ron Said- “If you are going to make a statement that can be supported by facts, be prepared to present those facts and the source.”
What a laugher. You and Celtica along with Libby are the worst for making statements you can’t back up. Democrats, as part of their political platform lie and make up stuff, change the subject and place blame when the get boxed in a corner. Just look at Benghazi.
Sarge,
Name one statement I have made that I was unable to back up when asked.
You said, “Democrats, as part of their political platform lie and make up stuff, change the subject and place blame when the get boxed in a corner.” And Republicans don’t?
Also, I agreed with you regarding Benghazi, or did you not see that in the other article?
I neither lie nor change the subject in any of my posts. You are very fond of saying that, Sarge, but in usual fashion when asked – you can’t back it up with actual facts. YOU are the pot calling the kettle black.
Eh? I do not read EVERY response to a subject when I have moved on to another topic. If I haven’t responded past the request to do so, there’s a pretty gosh darn good chance I haven’t read it. Some do have a life outside the IJ forum. And jobs to attend to.
But please do not let this stop you from using Bengazi as a weapon for your own political purposes. As for Benghazi, it was a tragedy — but no more so than 9-11.
Should they have happened? No.
Did it happen? Yes.
Sarg Maj:
If it’s lies you want, tell me again about those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
Still looking?
You’re an idiot. There were no lies about weapons of mass destruction.
If you want me to dismantel your agrument again, then let’s go Celitica.
Who fabricated the lies about the weapons of mass destruction?
Which country/ies collected the info? Was it unanimous in their findings? Were the findings compiled by the Bush Administration?
Answer the questions, then shut up. I’m tired of your liberal left’s slant on the Iraq war.
The answers: Unanimous info, including info from the CIA version of England. Did Bush compile the info? No. Did Bush alter the info? No.
I’m sick and tired of your bullcrap.
Weapons of mass destruction were not the reason for our entering the war with Iraq.
And further: Saddam was harboring Al Quieda operatives, was breaking UN Sanctions, and had killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. Al Gore spoke in 1991 (when he and Bill were running against HW) about the fact that we had “every” not some, “every” piece of information that said we had to act.
So what changed? How did Bush W make that report? Please explain? And while we are on weapons of destruction, WTF was with Clinton’s you will not defy the will of the world speech? He has used weapons of mass destruction and will use them again? What was that bombing of Iraq?
You’re a damn fool, in dire need of a history lesson.
Remind me: Was Bin Laden found inside or outside of the axis of evil?
Bush W was bold, and a lot of things, but Liar he was not. Especially regarding the Iraq war.
>Bob Said: You’re an idiot. There were no lies about weapons of mass destruction
1, Anyone who starts their argument with an insult is not up to a debate.
2, Anyone who doesn’t think there were no lies about WMD is definitely not to any debate.
So go get pissed and call me a lefty. But first remind me who actually was looking for Bin Laden. Because it sure wasn’t Bush.
Celtica- Wow, here we go again
here is a clip for you. You are getting Republicans and Democrats mixed up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhZ2ZvS2t_E
Or you mean from this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0f5u_0ytUs
Hey Sargeant, Your confirming utubes will cut no ice with Celtica or Metric Ron. They can see and hear all their liberal Democratic leaders saying the same thing and will probably say the Republicans faked the videos because they just cannot believe the evidence.
OK, Agent. I looked at the first YouTube on my lunch break. All those statements by Democratic Congressman during 2002 and 2003 were based on “briefings” given to them by NSA and CIA.
As outlined in my comprehensive list of LIES includes the following:
“A half-dozen former CIA agents investigating prewar intelligence have found that a secret Pentagon committee, set up by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in October 2001, manipulated reams of intelligence information prepared by the spy agency on the so-called Iraqi threat and then delivered it to top White House officials who used it to win support for a war in Iraq.”
They were fed the same misinformation as the American people. I am starting to doubt your comprehension skills, too. Start a different arguement, rather than the Democrats supported the POTUS based on misleading “intellegience.” Of course they did. And we did, too. Only to find out he LIED.
Sarge – even though your post was to Celtica, I have watched both videos. Granted, I have exceptional comprehensive skills, but I did not see anything in either video to contradict my assertions about Dubya and the Iraq war.
In the first, Congress based their statements on “briefings” from the White House, which we know now were using falsified intellegience.
In the second, Clinton never comes out and says he knows Hussein still has WMD’s, just that he had used them in the past and the purpose of the UN inspections was to guarantee he did not have them anymore.
Please, pray tell, what did I miss?
Hey Celtica,
The international intelligence community said there were WMD’s in Iraq, Bill Clinton said there were WMD’s in Iraq, Hillary Clinton said there were WMD’s in Iraq, John Kerry said there were WMD’s in Iraq, Ted “the Hero of Chappaquiddick” said there were WMD’s in Iraq.
The UN “Inspectors” never found the WMD’s because they always told Saddam where they were going to look next.
Before President Bush pulled the trigger in Iraq there were huge convoys of military trucks headed for Syria.
Don’t accuse GWB of lying when all of your socialist heroes were saying the same thing.
Dear Walter:
The difference is that while all of the above thought there were weapons of mass destruction, only Bush used it as a pretext for war. The others simply weren’t sure — and did not pull the trigger, so to speak. Too bad so many people had to die for a shoddy decision at least and a lie at worst. Itchy trigger finger, that Bush.
The UN told Saddam ahead of time where he should hide the non existent WMD’s – ??? Good one. Sad though.
The difference, Water Bug, is that they all thought there were WMD’s because Bush and Cheney provided “intellegience” they knew to be false at the time. In other words, they lied. There I said it. Now all you Bush-lovers can thumb me down – Again.
Libby:
Inherently, beliggerently,
Wrong. And you have nothing to back up what you just said.
If Bush W knew it was wrong info, then how? What info did he have disproving it? How did the entire congress and senate miss it? Bush W does not have control over Britain’s release of info, which everyone there had access to.
Stop being an idiot.
Equally beliggerantly:
LIE #1: “The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program … Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment need for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.” – President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.
FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic that, “You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that’s just a lie.”
LIE #2: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” – President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.
FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: “They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie,” he told the New Republic, anonymously. “They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly.”
LIE #3: “We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” – Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on “Meet the Press.”
FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.
LIE #4: “[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade.” – CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening’s speech by President Bush.
FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early ’90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.
LIE #5: “We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases … Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.” – President Bush, Oct. 7.
FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq’s control and patrolled by Allied war planes.
LIE #6: “We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States.” – President Bush, Oct. 7.
FACT: Said drones can’t fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq’s drone-building program wasn’t much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn’t a “manned aerial vehicle” just a scary way to say “plane”?
LIE #7: “We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they’re weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established.” – President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.
FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.
LIE #8: “Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.” – Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.
FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet our own intelligence reports show that these stocks – if they existed – were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.
LIE #9: “We know where [Iraq’s WMD] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.” – Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.
FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.
LIE #10: “Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited.” – President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.
FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were are potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts – including the State Department’s intelligence wing in a report released this week – have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair’s embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were, facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.
Eyewitness Proof: http://www.salon.com/2004/03/10/osp_moveon/
Yet More:
A half-dozen former CIA agents investigating prewar intelligence have found that a secret Pentagon committee, set up by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in October 2001, manipulated reams of intelligence information prepared by the spy agency on the so-called Iraqi threat and then delivered it to top White House officials who used it to win support for a war in Iraq.
You want more???
Oh, SNAP!
How about you view the utubes Sargeant provided to see what your own leaders said about this? It is from their own lips Libby.
I can’t watch YouTube at work, Agent. No speakers. How about responding to my list above???
So libby, what are your sources ( as Ron would say)? You can’t mean Salon.com? a left wing liberal rag headquartered in San Francisco. That is almost as bad as your offensive dig at black people and your link to the KKK website. This is nothing.
I made no offensive dig at black people, Sarge. Nice try.
And my source was a Human Right advocacy. So I’m sure it’s someone you never heard of and wouldn’t believe anyway since it did not come from FoxNews.
Sarge,
It is good to see that I am rubbing off on people to challenge others to provide sources. I would have even more respect for you if you also challenged those on your side (Agent comes to mind) to also provide their sources.
I actually directed every one of the above, but it didn’t post (likely too many links or an error)
Let me just put it shortly:
Many of what you have ARE NOT directly from the word of Bush W but rather other people who work in intelligence. That would be called being “wrong” or acting on false intelligence.
Moving on to others: Some are just bluntly incorrect. Stating that there was no evidence that Iraq was AGAIN involved with Al Quieda is foolish. They were at one point. That is evidence all it’s own. Besides which, we DO have evidence.
Now the rest I won’t direct, because your list was filled with false information, and or other people’s words not Bush W’s.
Bush W did not control those entities which gave him information.
Libby,
Good luck getting Agent to respond to anything from someone other Bob, Sarge, FFA, or any other person on their side.
Maybe he is having difficulty comprehending what you wrote. Not like that has stopped him from responding with an inaccurate assertion in relation to what was written in the past.
Libby & Ron, I can’t force you to see the evidence in front of you that Sargeant provided. You would rather promote your own views on what happened which has been thoroughly distorted by the liberal press and networks. Everybody from Clinton, Allbright, Jay Rockefellor, Teddy Kennedy on down the list of big liberal politicians were in complete agreement on Sadam and his ambitions and all voted for action. Libby, pull up the utube on your home computer if you get a chance and view the truth.
I know Ron. He loves to post the same comments over and over hoping someone will pay attention when all he sounds like is a broken record. He is so intent on his response, I sincerely doubt he even reads our posts before thumbing them down. Therefore, they rarely respond to anything we have said.
Sorry “Therefore, HE rarely responds to anything we have said.” Sigh…
Agent,
What evidence do you want me to see? I have not made any comments relating the lies leading up to the Iraq war. I want evidence showing the country’s economy has gotten worse since President Obama took office. I understand some states have had issues, but that falls on their leaders.
I have been asking for you to provide evidence in response to several of your posts. Mostly those that have distorted my words or failed to comprehend what I wrote.
Agent: Since you obviously don’t actually read my posts, I’ll post it again:
“OK, Agent. I looked at the first YouTube on my lunch break. All those statements by Democratic Congressman during 2002 and 2003 were based on “briefings” given to them by NSA and CIA.
As outlined in my comprehensive list of LIES includes the following:
“A half-dozen former CIA agents investigating prewar intelligence have found that a secret Pentagon committee, set up by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in October 2001, manipulated reams of intelligence information prepared by the spy agency on the so-called Iraqi threat and then delivered it to top White House officials who used it to win support for a war in Iraq.”
They were fed the same misinformation as the American people. I am starting to doubt your comprehension skills, too. Start a different arguement, rather than the Democrats supported the POTUS based on misleading “intellegience.” Of course they did. And we did, too. Only to find out he LIED.”
Again, come up with an argument other than the Democrats voted for it, too. Of course they did. Based on the lies told by Bush and Cheney. Please respond to that argument and quit with the “nah, nah, nah, nah-nah.”
And Agent – the Iraq war lies are my fight. You can leave others out of it unless they care to join in. Celtica???
Hey Ron – you asked a question on another article about what changed in Iraq’s culture from 1991 to 2003. No-one answered, but I am curious to know. Was it the No-Fly Zone initiated as part of the “end” of the Gulf War?
Libby,
I can’t imagine how a no-fly zone would impact people’s hatred toward each other within a country.
My assertion is that nothing changed and VP Cheney knew it was going to be as bad as it turned out. He just decided to mislead everybody regarding how difficult, costly and deadly an invasion would be.
That has always been my major disagreement with President Bush and his administration. I understand other people having issues, but I think a lot those are a result of having to make difficult decisions as President.
I didn’t get through the whole 7 pages of this article, but it was pretty interesting and kind of outlines the chain-of-events leading up to the Iraq War. I think it only strengthens my assertions about Iraq being a Bush holdover from the Gulf War.
http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html
Ron, I will be glad to respond. I have put up post after post with links and back up information and you still ask for more info or pretend it was not there. At the same time you, libby or that nitwit Celtica will make some shoot from the hip statement and claim it is gospel. I don’t have time to go back through who knows how many posts to prove you wrong. I can do that going forward.
Wow. 13 “likes” in less than 12 hours. You certainly have a following Sarge. Or you figured out how to inflate your ratings and downgrade others in order to censor them. Nice job!
You won’t get anywhere with either Celtica or Libby since they just don’t believe their eyes or ears and put their own slant on what was stated by their own Democratic leaders at the time.
Celtica, you have a very faulty memory. It was an international joke the way that the UN always told Saddam where they were going to search for WMD’s. While this farce was going on there WERE huge convoys headed to Syria with who knows what in them.
Slick Willie Clinton hurled a couple of missiles at an aspirin factory as his contribution to the war on terror.
You would have let Hitler get away with his deeds rather than take out a purely evil dictator.
Dear Walter:
You grasping at straws with that Hitler analogy.
It is also very, very offensive to equate the holocaust with the Iraq issue. Sick really.
Waterbug instigates Godwin’s Law. Celtica wins!
Didn’t take long to get off topic and back on the same argument.
Problem with this argument as I see it is no one will ever change their mind and both side think they are right.
Only one that seems to be changing their mind in regards to Obama is Libby. She will always not like Bush.
You are correct, FFA. I have seen the effects of war and it should never be entered into to settle a personal vendetta (Bush). I am not so stubborn, however, to not change my mind when presented with logical information. I will, however, continue to support Obama’s stance on social issues (gay marriage, womens rights, universal healthcare, etc.) as it lines up with mine.
Economically, there is much work to do. But I have said, in all fairness, he inherited a pretty big mess in 2008. And I don’t say that with any reference to Bush at all. It is just fact.