| Author |
|
Christopher Alan Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 October 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2787
|
| Posted: 17 October 2008 at 4:31pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
11 vetoes, 1 pocket veto, 4 vetoes overridden
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Ray Brady
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3737
|
| Posted: 17 October 2008 at 4:54pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
"Ronald Reagan (one of the few politicians in American history who actually was able to cut federal spending) "
-----
Federal spending has increased every single year since 1955. Here's what the numbers looked like during Reagan's administration:
1979: $504 bn
1980: $591 bn
1981: $678 bn
1982: $746 bn
1983: $808 bn
1984: $852 bn
1985: $946 bn
1986: $990 bn
1987: $1004 bn
1988: $1065 bn
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Al Cook
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 December 2004
Posts: 12734
|
| Posted: 17 October 2008 at 5:44pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Puppies I could care less about. But Banks?!?! No wonder you're in a
financial crisis! And a crisis of lack of sexy blondes!
Lifting funding restrictions on embryonic stem cell research would have
been a good thing.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6808
|
| Posted: 17 October 2008 at 5:56pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Rich I second what Mike said about Geoff being one of the good guys, he is what I like to call an old time republican, but he has some liberal leanings. I keep trying to talk him into going into politics because to be honest if we could get more guys like Barack on the dems side and guys like Geoff on the R's side we would be sitting pretty nice.
Puppies we don't need no stinking puppies!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
|
| Posted: 17 October 2008 at 6:21pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
What they need to do is introduce a bill putting a timeline withdraw to a vote.
Though I don't think we should have gone in there in the first place, a timeline would be the worst possible thing we could legislate. I'd have no problem with legislating a withdrawal based on specific, measurable goals, but not a specific date. A specific date can mean leaving them worse than they were before we went in. We most definitely shouldn't be there indefinitely, but, it should be tied to events, not time.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 36483
|
| Posted: 17 October 2008 at 6:26pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
I totally agree, Scott. I'm as against this "war" in Iraq as anyone. Have been for years. But I don't think a unilateral troop withdrawal by, say, May 2009 is going to help anyone. Oh sure, we'd be out but we'll be leaving behind an incredible, tragic mess. The United States got into this and as much as I don't want us there, we have a responsibility to make sure we have an exit strategy that doesn't leave the country in shambles and a holocaust of a civil war.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
|
| Posted: 17 October 2008 at 6:26pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
I for one, would not give a dime. And if that meant troops come home tomorrow, well so be it.
In that case, we should also have the option to not have our taxes redistributed to people looking for welfare. I'd rather fund our troops to keep them alive while serving their country than fund someone who just wants a hand out rather than work for it.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 36483
|
| Posted: 17 October 2008 at 6:29pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
And that's the problem with voters line iteming everything that's in the Federal Budget. Some people won't want to spend a single dime on anything other than themselves. Others will want to create a social program for every diverse group in the United States. Still others will be swayed by special interests and graft to vote however someone wants them to. What a mess.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
|
| Posted: 17 October 2008 at 6:29pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Thanks Matt. It just surprises me that the people who seem to want us out of their yesterday say it's for humanitarian reasons when it's probably the least humanitarian thing we could do.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
|
| Posted: 17 October 2008 at 6:31pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Yep. That's why we have to leave it up to our elected officials. We just have to vote for the ones who align with our desires and hope there are enough other people who agree. It's never going to be 100% what we want but we can hope there will be enough bipartisanship to at least do good.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Knut Robert Knutsen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 September 2006
Posts: 7369
|
| Posted: 17 October 2008 at 10:22pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
When I wrote that Bush probably though he had a line item veto, I was referring to those signing statement or commentaries he added to the bills he signed. Such an addendum or revision to a bill that had already passed is not, as far as I know, within the powers granted him by the constitution. Yet, for some reason he seemed to view those scribblings as being "official". Like a line item veto or line item addendum.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Rich Rice
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 08 April 2008
Posts: 195
|
| Posted: 18 October 2008 at 4:17am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
A perfect 3 for 3.
We entered the Iraq war on faulty reasoning.
The Pentagon/White House conducted the war on faulty reasoning.
And it appears we will end this war on faulty reasoning.
As I said, any 'war' that takes longer to conduct than WW2 should give some pause that reasoning is off somewhere. The greatest error in logic in the conduct of this war was the ever shifting reasons for being there. Ultimately, it was decided to be a 'war against terror', which might seem 'logical' but for the fact that 'terrorist' has been conflated to mean something so impossibly large and so impossibly broad in scope, it is near hopeless to end. Where there was once a network of perhaps -at most- several hundred, intent upon striking America, we created the notion that all acts of violence, all non-U.S. sanctioned groups, all fighting elements became one and the same same: terrorists.
What is at risk? Civil war between the Sunnis and Shia. What will resolve that risk? A commitment to coexist. Mutual cooperation. Resolution of disagreements. Shared power and wealth. None of those things can be supplied by the barrel of a gun. -You can stay in Iraq as long as you want. But the pot will boil and simmer all the while. One month or 20 months. A year or 10. Eventually, the people who live on that land will resolve their own crisis.
As to the 'terror' element, even if it comes down to Civil War between Sunni and Shia, by what scenario does it come to pass that the 'terrorists' will seize control? Why would a victorious Shia party surrender power and influence to terrorists? And if the Sunnis were victorious, why would the Sunnis surrender influence to terrorists? There were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded. I see no reliable evidence that there will be a terrorist coup if things go wrong.
Yes, many would die. That would be a tragedy. But we opened that can of worms by invading in the first place. The fate of Iraq is in the hands of the Iraqi people. And the sooner they take on that challenge, the better.
Besides, in this mincing about over our withdrawal, we ignore the fact that it is the Iraqi people who want us to leave. By great margins among the people, and by more tempered remarks by the government. They don't seem to have a problem with setting a time line. One would think they get a voice in the matter.
To another point, What is the sense of pouring more than 100 billion dollars to 'avoid a safe haven for terrorists' when the terrorists already HAVE a safe haven? It is absurd. If not Pakistan. Then Yemen. Or one of a thousand other spots scattered about the globe.
The 'war' on terror is best conducted by dialing back the whole conflated notion that has come with this horrid war action. It is through espionage, cooperation between nations and working WITH the many factions in the Arab world that we will keep America safe. -We cannot operate in that part of the world by seeing every interest of theirs as being evil. We would have to stay there forever. And we would have to kill a lot of people.
Robert Gates makes my point. He has entered into negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan to see what common ground may exist to end the conflict there. They want something. We want something. And he realizes 'they' will be there a long, long time. Far longer than our occupation. It is their land.
We took out Saddam because he killed 20,000 of his own people in the name of creating a stable Iraq. Now we've killed multiples of that. Destroyed the infrastructure of a nation. All in the name of creating a stable Iraq.
God said, "Thou shall not kill." Someone should have listened.
There are better ways to be safe. Other options. Smarter options. This way lies ruin.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
