Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
Hey Larry; You were wrong!
Topic Started: Nov 8 2006, 03:48 AM (1,144 Views)
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
QuirtEvans
Nov 9 2006, 10:18 AM
Jolly
Nov 9 2006, 09:05 AM
mmmaestro007
Nov 9 2006, 12:28 AM
does this mean no Republican can introduce a new bill, even W?

The President is not responisble for, nor can he introduce legislation.

Before you start criticizing, you really ought to read up on how our system of government works.

Technically correct, but as you are fond of saying, not the way it works in the real world.

In the real world, if the White House wants to introduce a bill, the White House drafts a bill, hands it to a friendly Congressman and a friendly Senator, and it gets introduced. Technically, it's not W who introduces it. But in actual, real-world fact, it's the White House that drafted it, and it's the White House's bill.

More likely, though, is that the White House works with one or more friendly Congressmen and/or Senators in the drafting process. The vast majority of the work will get done by people inside the Administration, with some comments and tweaking by Congressional staff, and perhaps some negotiation on specific important details between the Congressmen and Senators and higher-level legislative aides (or even the Chief of Staff).

Technically, any person can introduce a bill in Congress and way back when it even happened from time to time. The rules have not really changed to forbid it but, in practice, it is really pointless to introduce a bill without some congressional sponsorship so it makes more sense to have the bill introduced by a sponsor.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Look at Larry. He's been completely and utterly taken in. What else but fear itself makes someone think that Democrats will throw in the towel or make us less strong?


I haven't been "taken in" by anything, Dave. My perspective on modern liberalism is far more involved than simple political fearmongering (something the democrats have honed to a fine edge, by the way). But yes, fear is a good word to describe how I and many people feel about what the democrats will do. But it isn't an irrational fear - it is based on having listened to them *say* what they'll do.

As I was typing this, Pelossi was on TV answering the question "Do you want to *win* in Iraq, or do you want to simply get out?". Her response - that "win" could mean anything you wanted it to, that Iraq wasn't a war to "win", but was a "situation" we needed to get out of.

So yes, many of us fear what kind of decisions the goofball left will make, and yes, many of us fear what that will mean for the safety of this nation. You think it's because we've "fallen" for something. The ones that have "fallen" for something are people like you who keep telling us to trust democrats.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Larry
Nov 9 2006, 08:14 AM
Quote:
 
Look at Larry. He's been completely and utterly taken in. What else but fear itself makes someone think that Democrats will throw in the towel or make us less strong?


I haven't been "taken in" by anything, Dave. My perspective on modern liberalism is far more involved than simple political fearmongering (something the democrats have honed to a fine edge, by the way). But yes, fear is a good word to describe how I and many people feel about what the democrats will do. But it isn't an irrational fear - it is based on having listened to them *say* what they'll do.

As I was typing this, Pelossi was on TV answering the question "Do you want to *win* in Iraq, or do you want to simply get out?". Her response - that "win" could mean anything you wanted it to, that Iraq wasn't a war to "win", but was a "situation" we needed to get out of.

So yes, many of us fear what kind of decisions the goofball left will make, and yes, many of us fear what that will mean for the safety of this nation. You think it's because we've "fallen" for something. The ones that have "fallen" for something are people like you who keep telling us to trust democrats.

You're wrong, Larry. The Democrats who will soon control both Houses ARE NOT LIBERALS. Some of them are, certainly, BUT MOST OF THEM AREN'T. Sorry to yell, but you're not getting it. There was far greater danger to our country when we had Bush unchecked by a flaccid Congress. Now the branches have to fight. This is how we will succeed, Larry, not from a bunch of Republicans taking warm showers together.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I too was a bit concerned to hear Pelosi deny that we are in a war. Apparently she wants to go back to the Clinton years where we can fight a half-hearted police action when, every now and then, terrorists strike at our interests across the world. I guess we knew all along she and most Dems didn't think our response to 9/11 should be war. Wonder if the bulk of Americans are ready to buy into this (bury their head in the sand) because they are tired of Iraq.

And yes, I blame MSM. Can't stand to watch them positively beaming on TV with each new report.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Dave Spelvin
Nov 9 2006, 08:23 AM
The Democrats who will soon control both Houses ARE NOT LIBERALS. Some of them are, certainly, BUT MOST OF THEM AREN'T.


:rimshot:

:lol: You are joking, right?

:whome:

:leaving:
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
I guess we knew all along she and most Dems didn't think our response to 9/11 should be war.


No, we thought the response should be war. We just thought the response should be war against the people who attacked us, and not against someone El Presidente had a hard-on for since the day he entered office.

And we took El Presidente at his word when he said he'd get Osama, dead or alive. I guess we were wrong about that, too.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
You're wrong, Larry. The Democrats who will soon control both Houses ARE NOT LIBERALS. Some of them are, certainly, BUT MOST OF THEM AREN'T. Sorry to yell, but you're not getting it. There was far greater danger to our country when we had Bush unchecked by a flaccid Congress. Now the branches have to fight. This is how we will succeed, Larry, not from a bunch of Republicans taking warm showers together.


Dave, the only thing this election did was switch the committee heads from republicans to democrats. And you can sing that "most of them aren't liberals" all you want - the ones who will be heading up those committees are, for the most part, fruitcake liberals, headed up by Pelossi, one of the biggest fruitcakes in government. The woman doesn't even think we're in a war, for God's sakes.

Yes, there was an increase in moderate democrats. The Deaniacs have been sent a message. But the leadership of the democrat party is still made up of certified fools, and their current talk of "bipartisanship" will be gone in a few weeks, and their true colors will come back. And your "moderate democrats" will do as they're told.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Quote:
 
I guess we knew all along she and most Dems didn't think our response to 9/11 should be war. Wonder if the bulk of Americans are ready to buy into this (bury their head in the sand) because they are tired of Iraq.


You've stated the administration's false choice. The choice wasn't war or nothing. We should have capitalized on the world's love for us following 9/11, but Bush frittered that away. Instead, we're stuck. I think you'll find that the Dems won't try to yank us out, but they will try to set a schedule, an entirely reasonable idea despite the Bush objections.

Quote:
 
And yes, I blame MSM. Can't stand to watch them positively beaming on TV with each new report.


I was watching Brit Hume during election night (remember, he's on Fox News, the most watched TV news), and he was most distraught by the results. Is this some of the beaming you're referring to?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Larry
Nov 9 2006, 08:30 AM
Quote:
 
You're wrong, Larry. The Democrats who will soon control both Houses ARE NOT LIBERALS. Some of them are, certainly, BUT MOST OF THEM AREN'T. Sorry to yell, but you're not getting it. There was far greater danger to our country when we had Bush unchecked by a flaccid Congress. Now the branches have to fight. This is how we will succeed, Larry, not from a bunch of Republicans taking warm showers together.


Dave, the only thing this election did was switch the committee heads from republicans to democrats. And you can sing that "most of them aren't liberals" all you want - the ones who will be heading up those committees are, for the most part, fruitcake liberals, headed up by Pelossi, one of the biggest fruitcakes in government. The woman doesn't even think we're in a war, for God's sakes.

Yes, there was an increase in moderate democrats. The Deaniacs have been sent a message. But the leadership of the democrat party is still made up of certified fools, and their current talk of "bipartisanship" will be gone in a few weeks, and their true colors will come back. And your "moderate democrats" will do as they're told.

Jim Webb, former Secretary of the Navy under Reagan, will do as he's told? What are you, a comedian? Both majorities, especially in the Senate, are hairline. Webb and his breathren will have a lot of pull, as will the independents who may lean left but aren't left.

You and Kincaid predict all the worst possible results. As you and yours instructed the Democrats when Bush won the presidency in 2000 without the popular vote, give the new folks a chance. You may be pleasantly surprised.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
I was driving home from Atlanta during it all, and the only thing I could find on the radio covering the election results was NPR. I thought I was going to PUKE listening to those idiots - they were calling elections for the democrats with only 5% of the votes counted. It was like listening to a cheerleading squad for the democrat party.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Larry
Nov 9 2006, 08:36 AM
I was driving home from Atlanta during it all, and the only thing I could find on the radio covering the election results was NPR. I thought I was going to PUKE listening to those idiots - they were calling elections for the democrats with only 5% of the votes counted. It was like listening to a cheerleading squad for the democrat party.

I was watching Fox and they did the same thing. The Santorum loss was called seemingly before any precincts had reported.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Ever notice how the NPR people all sound like they're so drugged out that they're on the verge of passing out? I've never heard such a droning, comatose bunch in my life. Are they all really that boring, or is that some sort of affectation - you know, sort of an "I'm so sophisticated and intellectually superior that I speak like a machine"?....
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dave Spelvin
Nov 9 2006, 09:23 AM

You're wrong, Larry. The Democrats who will soon control both Houses ARE NOT LIBERALS. Some of them are, certainly, BUT MOST OF THEM AREN'T. Sorry to yell, but you're not getting it. There was far greater danger to our country when we had Bush unchecked by a flaccid Congress. Now the branches have to fight. This is how we will succeed, Larry, not from a bunch of Republicans taking warm showers together.


Flaccid? :spit: Hardly. It was just strong in a direction you did not like.

But the term is much more appropriate now of course, unless Pelosi has something under her dress that we all don't know about.

Not that that's a bad thing, IMO -- weak federal government is good government.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Larry
Nov 9 2006, 11:36 AM
I was driving home from Atlanta during it all, and the only thing I could find on the radio covering the election results was NPR. I thought I was going to PUKE listening to those idiots - they were calling elections for the democrats with only 5% of the votes counted. It was like listening to a cheerleading squad for the democrat party.

Depends on the race. They called the Ohio Governor's race against Ken Blackwell within 30 seconds after the polls closed, with ZERO percent of the votes counted. They were calling it based on the exit polling, which had Blackwell losing in a landslide.

And they were right. Strickland won by 23%.

By the way, why is it that the only radio station you could find covering the election was NPR? Did you ever give a moment's thought to THAT?
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Larry
Nov 9 2006, 08:41 AM
Ever notice how the NPR people all sound like they're so drugged out that they're on the verge of passing out? I've never heard such a droning, comatose bunch in my life. Are they all really that boring, or is that some sort of affectation - you know, sort of an "I'm so sophisticated and intellectually superior that I speak like a machine"?....

I like them. They relax me. But don't go to sleep on the road. Check out their weekend edition programs. Great stuff, mostly. In particular, I've learned about a bunch of musicians I would never have encountered otherwise. And if you can catch "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me", do yourself a favor and tune in. Hysterical. I practically piss myself every time I hear it.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
I found several stations that were covering state returns.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Well, you've contradicted yourself, haven't you:

Quote:
 
Flaccid? Hardly. It was just strong in a direction you did not like.


Quote:
 
weak federal government is good government.


So you liked a strong federal government when it was run by a bunch of Republicans. Or you didn't like them because they were strong?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
The Congress may not devolve into a sniping, bickering group where all we get is endless hearings for the next two years - if the Dems are shrewd. If they do the above, they'll be out on their ears in '08 (my "predictions" should be taken with a grain of salt, given my recent prognostications). Webb and Casey and the other conservative Dems will be allowed to keep their conservative positions - the leadership will orchestrate that because if Webb or Casey casts a vote contrary to the talking points that made them palatable to their electorate, they'll be gone next time around. Now, if something the Dems really, really crave requires Webb or Casey to flip, we may see them turn their back on their principles.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
I would like the federal government returned to what it was mandated to be - provide for the security of the nation. Shut the rest of it down. Do away with all the social programs, shut down all the various departments, dept of education, dept of checking hairy armpits, etc. Shut them all down and leave it all up to the individual states.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Larry
Nov 9 2006, 11:55 AM
Do away with all the social programs, shut down all the various departments, dept of education, dept of checking hairy armpits, etc.

I hadn't realized they had established a Department of Women's liberation.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Dave Spelvin
Nov 9 2006, 08:31 AM
Quote:
 
I guess we knew all along she and most Dems didn't think our response to 9/11 should be war. Wonder if the bulk of Americans are ready to buy into this (bury their head in the sand) because they are tired of Iraq.


You've stated the administration's false choice. The choice wasn't war or nothing. We should have capitalized on the world's love for us following 9/11, but Bush frittered that away. Instead, we're stuck. I think you'll find that the Dems won't try to yank us out, but they will try to set a schedule, an entirely reasonable idea despite the Bush objections.

Quote:
 
And yes, I blame MSM. Can't stand to watch them positively beaming on TV with each new report.


I was watching Brit Hume during election night (remember, he's on Fox News, the most watched TV news), and he was most distraught by the results. Is this some of the beaming you're referring to?

If not war, did you expect more of the same "flaccid" Clintonian response? Any reaction by Bush that projected U.S. power would have frittered away all that good will. Face it, the U.S. is the big dog in the room and everyone except perhaps Eastern Europe and the Kurds resent it because we have the power to affect things and they do not. Nobody hates Luxembourg and there is a reason for that.

Regarding Brit Hume, he looked subdued. But, unless he's laughing at a joke, it's hard to tell with him. Most of human communication is done by facial expression and body language. Words are a very small part.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
David Burton
Senior Carp
Watch out, any and all contradictions or statements suggesting implying or resulting in a contradiction will be seen as grounds for considering the person guilty of double mindedness, fuzzy thinking or any other excuse required to deny them the right to express themselves.

How is this?

The damn liberal Democrats suck! Is that plain enough?

If and when there is another big terrorist attack and the Dems are sitting around with their left thumbs up their asses sounding “oh so” NPR smart, who will defend the honor of this country and of Western civilization itself?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
David Burton
Nov 9 2006, 09:03 AM
Watch out, any and all contradictions or statements suggesting implying or resulting in a contradiction will be seen as grounds for considering the person guilty of double mindedness, fuzzy thinking or any other excuse required to deny them the right to express themselves.

How is this?

The damn liberal Democrats suck! Is that plain enough?

If and when there is another big terrorist attack and the Dems are sitting around with their left thumbs up their asses sounding “oh so” NPR smart, who will defend the honor of this country and of Western civilization itself?

Your government failed, David. The voters said so. Or don't you like Democracy?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Your government failed, David.


But not for the reasons you think, Dave.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maple
Junior Carp
Kincaid
Nov 9 2006, 12:00 PM
Nobody hates Luxembourg and there is a reason for that.

that might change at any time:

"Denmark is one of Egypt's worst enemies, second only after Israel, an Egyptian government poll has indicated." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6107160.stm
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3