Libs already breaking promises

[Stoner]

Looks like the whole, "We'll work 5 days a week" didn't last too long.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash7.htm

Oh well. Although all those with intelligence higher than their age saw this one coming and never expected them to be taken at their word.

[BoogyMan]

Lets not forget the promise to implement the 9/11 commission suggestions in their entirety, a promise they flip-flopped on almost immediately after the elections were over.

[Buck Laser]

Lets not forget the promise to implement the 9/11 commission suggestions in their entirety, a promise they flip-flopped on almost immediately after the elections were over.


Actually, Boog, the 9/11 commission recommendations are on the agenda, if you'll take a look.

And it's kinda hard to "work a five day week" the week of Jan. 1. But that's just detail, right?:D

[ECW]

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Drudge The Grudge is pissing about congress taking the day off to attend the National Championship NCAA football game? How many congresspeople will be at that game? Every damn one from Florida and Ohio! And the next week is a federal holiday and he's pissing that Congress is not warking on those two days? What a f***ing loser! Betcha he wasn't pissing when the DO NOTHINGS weren't even in session on Mondays for the past TEN YEARS but now that there's a game and a holiday he's whining like the little bitch he is. Is this all the Neo-Cons have? Is this it? What a joke.

"The Democrats are taking the day off to watch football! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!"

I guess when your agenda is bankrupt like the Neo-Con one is, taking a couple of days off qualifies as a NEWS FLASH to the simple minded partisans on the right.

[BoogyMan]

Lets not forget the promise to implement the 9/11 commission suggestions in their entirety, a promise they flip-flopped on almost immediately after the elections were over.


Actually, Boog, the 9/11 commission recommendations are on the agenda, if you'll take a look.

And it's kinda hard to "work a five day week" the week of Jan. 1.Â*Â*But that's just detail, right?:D


Well Buck, you didn't read the text again and just posted an assumption that you knew what was being discussed.

First off, they are talking about the week starting January 8, not January 1.Â*Â*Go do the reading.

Secondly, the democratsÂ*Â*ran on fully implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations and then shortly after the elections released information that they would not.Â*Â*


Democrats backpedal on 9/11 commission
SOURCE: Link Here (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070105-112753-4314r.htm)

House Democrats campaigned on a promise to implement the recommendations of the September 11 commission, but now say they will not enact all of them.
Â*Â*Â*Â*The recommendation to place all intelligence agencies under the Defense Department "is not on the table," said Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat.
Â*Â*Â*Â*Another obstacle to enacting all the commission reforms as promised is the formula by which federal anti-terrorism money is distributed across the country.
Â*Â*Â*Â*House Democrats are confident they can pass a bill in which funds would be distributed based on risk. Under that plan, the area around New York City and San Francisco would get much more funding than, for example, the area around Topeka, Kan., or Searchlight, Nev.
Â*Â*Â*Â*But such a plan almost certainly will be killed in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Lawmakers there almost always find it difficult to part with money for their police and fire departments or the Coast Guard, regardless of terrorism-risk assessments.
Â*Â*Â*Â*"I suspect the Senate will pass a different version than ours, and we will have to work it out in a conference," said Rep. Bennie Thompson, Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. "We should have a baseline funding of 25 percent for first responders in all 50 states and the rest should go to the areas with the greatest need and that have the most risk of a terrorist attack."
Â*Â*Â*Â*Another recommendation unlikely to be fully implemented is tasking one House committee with the responsibility of overseeing both intelligence operations and funding. However, Mr. Hoyer said, the plan to create a new subcommittee comprising members from the appropriations and intelligence committees will help.
Â*Â*Â*Â*"The 9/11 commission wanted a single authorizing body for intelligence, and I think the substance or the spirit of the recommendations will be achieved," he said.
Â*Â*Â*Â*Details are still to be finalized.
Â*Â*Â*Â*"It hasn't been worked out how the members would be chosen," said Rep. Silvestre Reyes, Texas Democrat and chairman of the intelligence panel. Whether the chairmen of the two committees or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would pick the members has yet to be decided, he said, but there will be a new panel in some form.
Â*Â*Â*Â*"As I understand it, it's a final deal. The rest is still being determined," said Rep. Chaka Fattah, Pennsylvania Democrat and a member of the Appropriations Committee.
Â*Â*Â*Â*Some Democrats oppose the hybrid idea from the outset.
"The question is what impact will it have on the intelligence committee, and it seems it will gut the committee's authority," said one Democrat, who did not wish to be named.
Â*Â*Â*Â*Mr. Hoyer said the intelligence panel would still have oversight and responsibility to ensure that intelligence operations are "effective and accountable."
Â*Â*Â*Â*The Senate will have few problems deciding who will oversee intelligence because "only the Senate intelligence committee can authorize spending for intelligence agencies," said its chairman, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia Democrat.
Â*Â*Â*Â*"Our biggest problem is getting the spending authorization done," he said. "It's been two years since we have and we want to do the 2007 as soon as possible and then work on 2008."
Â*Â*Â*Â*The indecision in the House could become a problem for Democrats' hopes of convincing the public that they are just as capable of protecting the country from terrorist attacks as Republicans.
Â*Â*Â*Â*And Republicans are eagerly waiting to see whether Democrats will finally concede that many of the remaining September 11 commission recommendations shouldn't be enacted.
Â*Â*Â*Â*"I think what Democrats are finding in some of the 9/11 recommendations we didn't implement, looking closely at them ... these are not good ideas," said Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Michigan Republican and his party's ranking member on the intelligence panel.
Â*Â*Â*Â*He said the hybrid committee is unnecessary if both the Appropriations Committee and the intelligence panel chairmen pledge to have the same budget priorities.
Â*Â*Â*Â*"That is what I did with Representative Jerry Lewis [California Republican] when I was intelligence chair and he was appropriations chair in the last Congress, and it worked fine," Mr. Hoekstra said.

[Buck Laser]

Washington Times--now there's a reliable source!:D

[BoogyMan]

Washington Times--now there's a reliable source!:D


Take ANOTHER shot Buck.


Democrats Reject Key 9/11 Panel Suggestion

SOURCE: Link Here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901317_pf.html)

It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies. Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.

Because plans for implementing the commission's recommendations are still fluid, Democratic officials would not speak for the record. But aides on the House and Senate appropriations, armed services and intelligence committees confirmed this week that a reorganization of Congress would not be part of the package of homeland-security changes up for passage in the "first 100 hours" of the Democratic Congress.

"I don't think that suggestion is going anywhere," said Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.), the chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee and a close ally of the incoming subcommittee chairman, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.). "That is not going to be their party position."

It may seem like a minor matter, but members of the commission say Congress's failure to change itself is anything but inconsequential. In 2004, the commission urged Congress to grant the House and Senate intelligence committees the power not only to oversee the nation's intelligence agencies but also to fund them and shape intelligence policy. The intelligence committees' gains would come at the expense of the armed services committees and the appropriations panels' defense subcommittees. Powerful lawmakers on those panels would have to give up prized legislative turf.

But the commission was unequivocal about the need.

"Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important," the panel wrote. "So long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need."

Now Democrats are balking, just as Republicans did before them.

The decision will almost certainly anger commission members, as well as families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, many of whom have pressed hard for implementation of the recommendations.

"The Democrats pledged to implement all the remaining 9/11 reforms, not some of them," said former representative Timothy J. Roemer (D-Ind.), who served on the commission.

Carie Lemack, whose mother was in one of the jets that hit the World Trade Center, echoed that sentiment: "It wasn't a Chinese takeout menu, the 41 recommendations. You have to do all of them."

Democratic leadership dust-ups this month severely limited the ability of House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) to implement the commission's recommendations, according to Democratic aides.

Pelosi strongly backed Murtha for House majority leader, only to see him soundly defeated by Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.). That chain of events made it difficult for her to ask Murtha, a longtime ally, to relinquish control of the intelligence budget from his consolation prize, the chairmanship of the Appropriations defense subcommittee, according to Democratic sources.

Likewise, a controversy over the choice of a new chairman of the House intelligence committee proved to be a factor in the decision. The Sept. 11 commission urged Congress to do away with traditional term limits on the intelligence committees to preserve continuity and expertise, a recommendation the House implemented in 2003. But in her search for a reason to drop the committee's most senior Democrat, Jane Harman (Calif.), from the panel, Pelosi fell back on the tradition of term limits. She has decided to pass over the intelligence committee's second-ranking Democrat, Alcee L. Hastings (Fla.), as well.

To the Sept. 11 commission, the call for congressional overhaul was vital, said former New Jersey governor Thomas H. Kean (R), the commission's co-chairman. Because intelligence committee membership affords lawmakers access to classified information, only intelligence committee members can develop the expertise to watch over operations properly, he said. But because the panels do not control the budget, intelligence agencies tend to dismiss them.

"The person who controls your budget is the person you listen to," Kean said.

Those people, the appropriators, do not seem to care much, he said. The intelligence budget is a small fraction of the nearly $500 billion overseen by the armed services committees and the appropriations panels' defense subcommittees. Kean said that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), an Armed Services Committee member, told the Sept. 11 commission that if his panel spends 10 minutes considering the intelligence budget, it has been a good year.

"We think this is extremely crucial," Kean said of a reorganization shifting budget authority to the intelligence committees. But, he added, there are "a lot of old bulls in both parties who just don't want to do it."

In 2004, the Senate tried to reach a compromise on the issue, proposing to create intelligence subcommittees under the House and Senate appropriations committees. The appropriators would maintain most of their power, but at least distinct panels would have to watch over intelligence spending.

The idea went nowhere in the House. To make it work, total spending on intelligence would have to be declassified, another commission recommendation that Congress has rejected. Besides, Young said, an intelligence subcommittee effectively exists in the form of the Appropriations defense subcommittee chairman and ranking member, who have taken serious interest in intelligence spending.

Democratic aides yesterday chose to talk up what they will do in the opening hours of the 110th Congress. Plans are not complete, but the incoming Democratic majority is likely to expand efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons; ensure the interoperability of communications equipment so first responders can communicate more effectively; develop a comprehensive screening system for air cargo; and establish a civil-liberties board to protect the public against intelligence agencies expanding their reach.

[Stoner]

Boogy has invented the "Cyber Bitch Slap".

Great retort.

[ECW]

Let's see if I have this right.

The 9/11 Commission comes out with their report.

The DO NOTHINGS do nothing about it and let their term expire without even passing a national budget (now three months overdue).

Democrats promise to implement the Commission report (when the GOP, who is supposedly all over our national security, fails to do anything) when they take over.

Congress hasn't been in session a week and you are already pissing about what they MIGHT or MIGHT NOT do based on news reports and speculation, not actual events? That's rich! MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

At least when I drill a new asshole for a neocon it's because of something they actually did OR failed to do when given the chance. No chance has been given. I think the appropriate term for this thread is premature ejaculation.

[BoogyMan]

I love it ECW.Â*Â*YOUR party made an issue of running on a full implementation of the 9/11 commission recommendations and YOUR party is the party that is now backtracking on that issue.

Hypocrissy?Â*Â*I think so.

It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies. Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.

The reason we point this out ECW, is you have repeatedly told us that your party does everything with more honesty and better than the republicans.

Who is concerned about power now ECW? Hmmmmmm.....

Thanks for trying to play. :D

[lily]

Washington Times--now there's a reliable source!:D


Take ANOTHER shot Buck.


Democrats Reject Key 9/11 Panel Suggestion

SOURCE: Link Here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901317_pf.html)

It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies. Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.

Because plans for implementing the commission's recommendations are still fluid, Democratic officials would not speak for the record. But aides on the House and Senate appropriations, armed services and intelligence committees confirmed this week that a reorganization of Congress would not be part of the package of homeland-security changes up for passage in the "first 100 hours" of the Democratic Congress.

"I don't think that suggestion is going anywhere," said Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.), the chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee and a close ally of the incoming subcommittee chairman, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.). "That is not going to be their party position."

It may seem like a minor matter, but members of the commission say Congress's failure to change itself is anything but inconsequential. In 2004, the commission urged Congress to grant the House and Senate intelligence committees the power not only to oversee the nation's intelligence agencies but also to fund them and shape intelligence policy. The intelligence committees' gains would come at the expense of the armed services committees and the appropriations panels' defense subcommittees. Powerful lawmakers on those panels would have to give up prized legislative turf.

But the commission was unequivocal about the need.

"Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important," the panel wrote. "So long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need."

Now Democrats are balking, just as Republicans did before them.

The decision will almost certainly anger commission members, as well as families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, many of whom have pressed hard for implementation of the recommendations.

"The Democrats pledged to implement all the remaining 9/11 reforms, not some of them," said former representative Timothy J. Roemer (D-Ind.), who served on the commission.

Carie Lemack, whose mother was in one of the jets that hit the World Trade Center, echoed that sentiment: "It wasn't a Chinese takeout menu, the 41 recommendations. You have to do all of them."

Democratic leadership dust-ups this month severely limited the ability of House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) to implement the commission's recommendations, according to Democratic aides.

Pelosi strongly backed Murtha for House majority leader, only to see him soundly defeated by Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.). That chain of events made it difficult for her to ask Murtha, a longtime ally, to relinquish control of the intelligence budget from his consolation prize, the chairmanship of the Appropriations defense subcommittee, according to Democratic sources.

Likewise, a controversy over the choice of a new chairman of the House intelligence committee proved to be a factor in the decision. The Sept. 11 commission urged Congress to do away with traditional term limits on the intelligence committees to preserve continuity and expertise, a recommendation the House implemented in 2003. But in her search for a reason to drop the committee's most senior Democrat, Jane Harman (Calif.), from the panel, Pelosi fell back on the tradition of term limits. She has decided to pass over the intelligence committee's second-ranking Democrat, Alcee L. Hastings (Fla.), as well.

To the Sept. 11 commission, the call for congressional overhaul was vital, said former New Jersey governor Thomas H. Kean (R), the commission's co-chairman. Because intelligence committee membership affords lawmakers access to classified information, only intelligence committee members can develop the expertise to watch over operations properly, he said. But because the panels do not control the budget, intelligence agencies tend to dismiss them.

"The person who controls your budget is the person you listen to," Kean said.

Those people, the appropriators, do not seem to care much, he said. The intelligence budget is a small fraction of the nearly $500 billion overseen by the armed services committees and the appropriations panels' defense subcommittees. Kean said that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), an Armed Services Committee member, told the Sept. 11 commission that if his panel spends 10 minutes considering the intelligence budget, it has been a good year.

"We think this is extremely crucial," Kean said of a reorganization shifting budget authority to the intelligence committees. But, he added, there are "a lot of old bulls in both parties who just don't want to do it."

In 2004, the Senate tried to reach a compromise on the issue, proposing to create intelligence subcommittees under the House and Senate appropriations committees. The appropriators would maintain most of their power, but at least distinct panels would have to watch over intelligence spending.

The idea went nowhere in the House. To make it work, total spending on intelligence would have to be declassified, another commission recommendation that Congress has rejected. Besides, Young said, an intelligence subcommittee effectively exists in the form of the Appropriations defense subcommittee chairman and ranking member, who have taken serious interest in intelligence spending.

Democratic aides yesterday chose to talk up what they will do in the opening hours of the 110th Congress. Plans are not complete, but the incoming Democratic majority is likely to expand efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons; ensure the interoperability of communications equipment so first responders can communicate more effectively; develop a comprehensive screening system for air cargo; and establish a civil-liberties board to protect the public against intelligence agencies expanding their reach.



I see a lot of speculation by one man. I also see a lost of mights, and I thinks. If I may quote two quotes a wise man said to me on another thread?

It would seem to me that we don't even know yet whether or not this is an
actuality

Lily Wrote:
Well....one of us is going to be admitting they were wrong..........Deal?

For what?Â*Â*Taking a wait and see attitude?Â*Â*Egads Lily.

I think I'll give them a few more hours.

[ECW]

I love it ECW.Â*Â*YOUR party made an issue of running on a full implementation of the 9/11 commission recommendations and YOUR party is the party that is now backtracking on that issue.

Hypocrissy?Â*Â*I think so.

It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies. Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.

The reason we point this out ECW, is you have repeatedly told us that your party does everything with more honesty and better than the republicans.

Who is concerned about power now ECW?Â*Â*Hmmmmmm.....

Thanks for trying to play. :D


Don't forget: Democrats are the game right now. The DO NOTHINGS forfeited their chance. Unlike the Republicans, power is not the central focus of our agenda. It's getting things done. You blew your chance and now you're whining because we are planning to act on ours. When the end of the 110th session is over and they have not passed all of the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission, then you'll have something to piss and moan about and I'll be right there with you. But we're one week into the session and you're already blowing snot about what hasn't been done yet. What's next? We didn't balance the budget yet? We didn't solve the quagmire in Iraq yet? We didn't find Osama bin Laden yet? When you are a supporter of the DO NOTHINGS you have no right to complain when someone does something you don't like because we did something while you did not.

Sour grapes.

[BoogyMan]

I see a lot of speculation by one man. I also see a lost of mights, and I thinks. If I may quote two quotes a wise man said to me on another thread?

It would seem to me that we don't even know yet whether or not this is an actuality

Lily Wrote:
Well....one of us is going to be admitting they were wrong..........Deal?

For what?Â*Â*Taking a wait and see attitude?Â*Â*Egads Lily.

I think I'll give them a few more hours.


Wow, you did quote a pretty smart fella didn't you Lily! :D

My commentary in this regard was taken directly from the claims of our shiney new democrat congress critters.Â*Â*Read the Washington Post article specifically.

[ECW]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Despite the Democratic House leadership's pledge to work five days a week, the new leaders opted to take the first day of the first full week of the 110th Congress off so that lawmakers could attend a college football game.

Two Democratic leadership sources tell CNN that the House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, approached House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, and requested that Hoyer refrain from scheduling votes on Monday so that he and other lawmakers could attend the NCAA football championship game in Glendale, AZ. Boehner's home state team, Ohio State, is playing the University of Florida.

One Democratic leadership aide said "Boehner asked for no votes so we accommodated him."

Kevin Smith, spokesman for Minority Leader Boehner confirmed Rep. Boehner would be attending the NCAA championship game, "He will be in Arizona rooting on his home-state Buckeyes, and back to work on Tuesday." Smith confirms Boehner is paying his own way for travel and tickets.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

It was a Republican who asked for the day off. So much for this bullshit thread.

[Drocket]

It was a Republican who asked for the day off. So much for this bullshit thread.

What's amusing is that had the Democrats said no, there'd be a post on Drudge and a link to it here about how the Democrats are refusing to act in a bipartisan manner.

[ECW]

It was a Republican who asked for the day off. So much for this bullshit thread.

What's amusing is that had the Democrats said no, there'd be a post on Drudge and a link to it here about how the Democrats are refusing to act in a bipartisan manner.


Someone go and check...

Is there a NEWS FLASH on drudge the ignorant judge about the fact that it Boner who wanted the day off?

[Labrocca]

ECW...this isn't a wrestling ring where bravado wins you a match. This is a political debate forums.

You claim the GOP are DO NOTHINGS...but aren't you upset over what they have done? Such as giving the president more power to ensure national security. Such as invading Iraq. Or how about implementing the "no child left behind" policy? I am really curious about what the Dems really will do. However I won't hold my breathe waiting. It's like in 1992 when Clinton was elected on the promise of Health Care reform and within 2 years they gave up and LESS people were insured. Dems promise what they can't deliver. They didn't win this election because of their words...they won because the GOP messed up and Iraq has gone poorly. I can see the next election going GOP big time simply because the Dems will FAIL to accomplish anything worthwhile. The Democratic party is a shell. Easily broken with no substance on the inside.

The current Dem leadership has ONE strategy...attack the GOP for everything. Since they are now in power their strategy will fail because now they have the ball and simply won't take the shot. You can't just sit on capital hill with your hands in your pocket...and you definitely can't do it with your hands in other people's pockets. When the Dems go to raise taxes...all hell will break loose!

Enjoy...

WWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA on that.

[Buck Laser]

Very early in this thread, Boogy started his old thread about how how the democrats are reneging on their promise to implement the 9/11 commission recommendations. So imagine my surprise when I woke up this morning to hear that the House is working on legislation to implement the recommendations!!!

But, but, but Boogy!!! You tol' me they were gonna blow that stuff off!! How can I ever trust you any more? Shit, how can I even trust Fearless Leader Labrocca if HE says it's all partisanship?:(

DAMN those democrats!! We republicans announce what they're gonna do, and the sumbitches turn around and do something as unamerican as following up on their campaign promises!!! They ain't no integrity in politix no more!

[BoogyMan]

Very early in this thread, Boogy started his old thread about how how the democrats are reneging on their promise to implement the 9/11 commission recommendations.Â*Â*So imagine my surprise when I woke up this morning to hear that the House is working on legislation to implement the recommendations!!!

But, but, but Boogy!!!Â*Â*You tol' me they were gonna blow that stuff off!!Â*Â*How can I ever trust you any more?Â*Â*Shit, how can I even trust Fearless Leader Labrocca if HE says it's all partisanship?:(

DAMN those democrats!! We republicans announce what they're gonna do, and the sumbitches turn around and do something as unamerican as following up on their campaign promises!!!Â*Â*They ain't no integrity in politix no more!


Buck, once again you intentionally misrepresent what was posted.Â*Â*Do you EVER actually READ what is posted?Â*Â*I commented on them running on the promise to FULLY IMPLEMENT the recommendations and then showed their own statements where they were going to eliminate the one recommendation which directly affected them.

Honesty goes a long way in a debate Buck, go back and read what was posted and then come back and take another shot.

[ECW]

ECW...this isn't a wrestling ring where bravado wins you a match.Â*Â*This is a political debate forums.

Thus the name Democracy Forums. I understood it from day one.

You claim the GOP are DO NOTHINGS...but aren't you upset over what they have done?Â*Â*Such as giving the president more power to ensure national security. Such as invading Iraq.Â*Â*Or how about implementing the "no child left behind" policy?Â*Â*

The 109th Congress are the DO NOTHINGS, not Republicans in general.

Am I upset about what they have done in the last six years? You betcha! I cannot think of one thing in the last six years that the GOP did for the "benefit of the people" where (1) there wasn't something in it for one of their constituencies where they made out like a bandit on the public dime, (2) where our privacy wasn't intruded upon and then found to be abused by the very people who said they watching over us, (3) where promises were made and then promptly broken and everyone who pointed out the promises were broken was vilified for doing so, (4) lies were told for political gain and the politics of personal destruction kicked in when people tried to hold the liars accountable, (5) programs were passed with great fanfare and then starved for funds after the spotlight was off.

Whatever sins against the public the Democrats may have committed over the past 30+ years while they were in power pale in comparison to what Congressional Republicans have done with George Walker Bush as president for the last six years.

I am really curious about what the Dems really will do.Â*Â*However I won't hold my breathe waiting.Â*Â*It's like in 1992 when Clinton was elected on the promise of Health Care reform and within 2 years they gave up and LESS people were insured.Â*Â*Dems promise what they can't deliver.Â*Â*

Don't forget that it was the GOP who fought tooth and nail AGAINST health care reform and the Hillary plan. They took over Congress a year later and what has been accomplished since then? You got it! Absolutely nothing. President Clinton complained about it but his protests fell on deaf ears in the GOP/Gingrich led congress.

They didn't win this election because of their words...they won because the GOP messed up and Iraq has gone poorly.Â*Â*I can see the next election going GOP big time simply because the Dems will FAIL to accomplish anything worthwhile.Â*Â*The Democratic party is a shell.Â*Â*Easily broken with no substance on the inside.

I'm glad your crystal ball is so clear after only one week of the 110th Congress being in session. I remember similar predictions of an erroneous nature in the first week of November 2006...

The current Dem leadership has ONE strategy...attack the GOP for everything.Â*Â*Since they are now in power their strategy will fail because now they have the ball and simply won't take the shot.Â*Â*You can't just sit on capital hill with your hands in your pocket...and you definitely can't do it with your hands in other people's pockets.Â*Â*When the Dems go to raise taxes...all hell will break loose!

Enjoy...

WWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAÂ*Â*on that.


The Democrats have a plan for fixing what's wrong with this country but Republicans are clueless as to what it is because they are so busy bashing everything that the Democrats say, they miss the point altogether. It's why you lost power this time around.

Despite your prophecies of doom, the American people have seen through the "less taxes is better" mantra that you have pulled on them. They now understand what I knew all along: less taxes means fewer entitlement programs for them. They saw a GOP Congress reward their rich friends with legislation/programs that made their buddies richer than they already were and the public was still living paycheck to paycheck. They saw that if they got sick longterm that everything they worked for their whole lives could be washed down the tubes because they had no health care insurance. They saw that if their city was washed away that no one from the government would care especially if they were poor, especially if they were black. The people have seen thru the GOP and exposed your party for the soul-less, Social Darwinist, predator protecting, Christian Right pandering party that it has become.

I actually feel sorry for the once proud Barry Goldwater-Nelson Rockefeller conservatives in your party who have seen it hijacked by this neocon crowd. Good luck getting it back anytime soon.

In the meantime, Democrats are running the show. Watch our dust.

[ECW]

Very early in this thread, Boogy started his old thread about how how the democrats are reneging on their promise to implement the 9/11 commission recommendations.Â*Â*So imagine my surprise when I woke up this morning to hear that the House is working on legislation to implement the recommendations!!!

But, but, but Boogy!!!Â*Â*You tol' me they were gonna blow that stuff off!!Â*Â*How can I ever trust you any more?Â*Â*Shit, how can I even trust Fearless Leader Labrocca if HE says it's all partisanship?:(

DAMN those democrats!! We republicans announce what they're gonna do, and the sumbitches turn around and do something as unamerican as following up on their campaign promises!!!Â*Â*They ain't no integrity in politix no more!


Buck, once again you intentionally misrepresent what was posted.Â*Â*Do you EVER actually READ what is posted?Â*Â*I commented on them running on the promise to FULLY IMPLEMENT the recommendations and then showed their own statements where they were going to eliminate the one recommendation which directly affected them.

Honesty goes a long way in a debate Buck, go back and read what was posted and then come back and take another shot.


I'll save you the time Buck.

Here's the one recommendation you were concerned about, now in a bill of it's own.

Bill would reorganize intelligence oversight

In a move aimed at addressing another key recommendation of the 9/11 commission, the House is also expected take up a separate measure Tuesday to create a new select committee designed to better integrate U.S. intelligence oversight with the appropriations process.

The new panel would include members from both the Intelligence Committee, which authorizes and oversees intelligence programs, and the Appropriations Committee, which holds the purse strings.

"We will have the ability of both committees to work together to see to it that we conduct oversight not only of budget actions, but also of activities of the intelligence community," said Rep. David Obey, D-Wisconsin, chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

The 9/11 commission recommended that intelligence oversight by Congress be reorganized, calling it "dysfunctional."


Right here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/09/house.agenda/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)

Promises made... promises kept.

[Viper2]

I may be mistaken, however, wouldn't the correct term be the "DemLibSocs" breaking their promises ??

Anyway, we'll just have to wait and see if Pelosi and mob can deliver.

I think she touted "total bi-partisan" involvement in all areas - so let's see if she lives up to her word during the first "100" hours.

Personally, I doubt it - but I have been wrong before.

[Buck Laser]

Very early in this thread, Boogy started his old thread about how how the democrats are reneging on their promise to implement the 9/11 commission recommendations. So imagine my surprise when I woke up this morning to hear that the House is working on legislation to implement the recommendations!!!

But, but, but Boogy!!! You tol' me they were gonna blow that stuff off!! How can I ever trust you any more? Shit, how can I even trust Fearless Leader Labrocca if HE says it's all partisanship?:(

DAMN those democrats!! We republicans announce what they're gonna do, and the sumbitches turn around and do something as unamerican as following up on their campaign promises!!! They ain't no integrity in politix no more!


Buck, once again you intentionally misrepresent what was posted. Do you EVER actually READ what is posted? I commented on them running on the promise to FULLY IMPLEMENT the recommendations and then showed their own statements where they were going to eliminate the one recommendation which directly affected them.

Honesty goes a long way in a debate Buck, go back and read what was posted and then come back and take another shot.


How disingenuous. Fuck honesty, you go back to your scholastic word parsing! I guess I shouldn'g be surprised though, because this whole thread began as an attempt to paint "libs" (presumably Stoner meant democrats, but was just too stoned to spell it right. After all, the congress is still pretty damned centrist.) But whatever, you jumped right in with your little refrain about the 9/11 report. If you think I misconstrued it, I have no doubt that you'll correct me. Winning the argument seems to count more with you than what's actually happening.

In the meantime, I'll watch how congress does. I'll cut the congress at least as much slack as I did Bush when he took over. I was with him even after 9/11, and when he went into Afghanistan. But when he went whoring after Iraq, I began to realize hie's really a fool.

I don't expect the congress to do all I want it to do, but I will look for a higher level of responsibility and integrity than the last congress displayed. And if for no other reason that DeLay is gone and Dumb Denny is out of a job, things are looking better.

But back to the main point: did you, or did you not claim that congress/Pelosi were backing away from a promise to implement the 9/11 commission recommendations? If I didn't construe your claim down to the minutest detail, please forgive me, 'cause I'm old, and weak from drink.:P But I do believe I addressed the central point of what you were trying to claim.

[Stoner]

In the meantime, Democrats are running the show. Watch our dust.


They have to actually do something and go somewhere before we can "watch their dust".

Libs need to actually put in a full weeks of work and cease their lying about the "100 hours".

But hey, football is more important than our country.

[Viper2]

In the meantime, Democrats are running the show. Watch our dust.


They have to actually do something and go somewhere before we can "watch their dust".Â*Â*

Libs need to actually put in a full weeks of work and cease their lying about the "100 hours".Â*Â*

But hey, football is more important than our country.


Ouch, that hurt - true - but still hurt :cool::cool::cool:

[sbannon]

They have to actually do something and go somewhere before we can "watch their dust".

Libs need to actually put in a full weeks of work and cease their lying about the "100 hours".

But hey, football is more important than our country.

So... we're still overlooking that it was a Republican who requested the Congressional football time-out?

I get it, screw the facts of the situation--just blame the Dems! ooops, sorry, the Libs!

[Stoner]

I get it, screw the facts of the situation

"2 unnamed liberal sources" is now considered fact?

Huh.

[sbannon]

I see, you need confirmation from Rep. Boehner's office... well, contact them and request it. And in the mean time show us all what a fair and honorable person you are by withdrawing your attacks against the Democrats for taking this day off until you have your concrete facts straight.

[BoogyMan]

But back to the main point: did you, or did you not claim that congress/Pelosi were backing away from a promise to implement the 9/11 commission recommendations?Â*Â*If I didn't construe your claim down to the minutest detail, please forgive me, 'cause I'm old, and weak from drink.:PÂ*Â*But I do believe I addressed the central point of what you were trying to claim.

Buck, buck, buck. tsk.

YOU made the claim to try and broaden my intent. YOU didn't read the posting. If you aren't going to read the posts don't try to argue a non-existant point.

My commentary pointed to the FACT that they were claiming they would FULLY implement the recommendations of the 9/11 committee and pointed out that they were backtracking on the oversight provision. I posted articles SPECIFICALLY speaking to the point I was making.

Not only did you not construe the claim correctly you intentionally misrepresented it.

[Buck Laser]

Oh, so if they leave out a single clause or phrase, that's a broken promise?:D
Why am I not surprised at weasel words in your posting? You just can't STAND to be wrong, can you? But note that I have apologized for my misstatements.

[ECW]

Oh, so if they leave out a single clause or phrase, that's a broken promise?:D
Why am I not surprised at weasel words in your posting?Â*Â*You just can't STAND to be wrong, can you?Â*Â*But note that I have apologized for my misstatements.


Hey, Buck! Give it up.

The Democrats fully accepted the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and passed them like they promised. The fact that the oversight committee isn't exactly what the commission suggested is irrelevant because what is important is that there IS an oversight commission. The DO NOTHINGS had every opportunity to pass this very legislation but they failed to do so leaving America more at risk because of it. They are whining because someone else cleaned up their mess and now they have to shout, "You missed a spot!"

Our conservative/neocon/stoned friends cannot see the forest because the trees are in the way. You know that it is a done deal and I know that it is a done deal. Let them figure it out for themselves or go read Drudge where the NEWS FLASH they trust and believe in may enlighten them if one actually comes that tells an iota of the truth.

ECW

[Viper2]

They have to actually do something and go somewhere before we can "watch their dust".Â*Â*

Libs need to actually put in a full weeks of work and cease their lying about the "100 hours".Â*Â*

But hey, football is more important than our country.

So... we're still overlooking that it was a Republican who requested the Congressional football time-out?

I get it, screw the facts of the situation--just blame the Dems! ooops, sorry, the Libs!


Okay, but who was the "authority" that granted it ?????

[Viper2]

Oh, so if they leave out a single clause or phrase, that's a broken promise?:D
Why am I not surprised at weasel words in your posting?Â*Â*You just can't STAND to be wrong, can you?Â*Â*But note that I have apologized for my misstatements.



Hmmmm, they seem to hang on every thing President Bush says so they can come back later and say - see he didn't do this that and the other - so what's wrong in holding their feet to the fire - or is it simply the DPDS at work all over again ?????

[sbannon]

They have to actually do something and go somewhere before we can "watch their dust".

Libs need to actually put in a full weeks of work and cease their lying about the "100 hours".

But hey, football is more important than our country.

So... we're still overlooking that it was a Republican who requested the Congressional football time-out?

I get it, screw the facts of the situation--just blame the Dems! ooops, sorry, the Libs!


Okay, but who was the "authority" that granted it ?????

And if they hadn't been kind enough to say, "okay, you can have your day for football"--you and others would likely be here crying that the Democrats are refusing to be bipartisan and 'play nice'.

Admit it, you're just grasping at straws to have something to complain about with this single day off crap.

I'm not against crying foul when a foul occurs, that's how we keep our leaders (and each other's parties) in check. But shouldn't we at least try to focus on actual fouls that have some impact on somebody, huh?

[Buck Laser]

Hmmmm, they seem to hang on every thing President Bush says so they can come back later and say - see he didn't do this that and the other - so what's wrong in holding their feet to the fire - or is it simply the DPDS at work all over again ?????

Sorry...What's a DPDS?

[BoogyMan]

Oh, so if they leave out a single clause or phrase, that's a broken promise?:D
Why am I not surprised at weasel words in your posting?Â*Â*You just can't STAND to be wrong, can you?Â*Â*But note that I have apologized for my misstatements.


Once again Buck, you don't read. The democrats made a consistent drumbeat of the fact that they would FULLY implement the 9/11 commission recommendations. They are not going to FULLY implement them.

Weasel words? Now that is truly funny Buck, thanks for another good giggle.

[Buck Laser]

Oh, so if they leave out a single clause or phrase, that's a broken promise?:D
Why am I not surprised at weasel words in your posting? You just can't STAND to be wrong, can you? But note that I have apologized for my misstatements.


Once again Buck, you don't read. The democrats made a consistent drumbeat of the fact that they would FULLY implement the 9/11 commission recommendations. They are not going to FULLY implement them.

Weasel words? Now that is truly funny Buck, thanks for another good giggle.

So tell me, O World's Expert, just which recommendations the democrats are NOT gonna implement. I'm waiting...

[BoogyMan]

The Democrats fully accepted the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and passed them like they promised. The fact that the oversight committee isn't exactly what the commission suggested is irrelevant because what is important is that there IS an oversight commission. The DO NOTHINGS had every opportunity to pass this very legislation but they failed to do so leaving America more at risk because of it. They are whining because someone else cleaned up their mess and now they have to shout, "You missed a spot!"

Not exactly what the committee suggested? Bwahahahahahahah

Backtracking is backtracking, your willingness to propagate that double standard speaks volumes ECW.

Our conservative/neocon/stoned friends cannot see the forest because the trees are in the way. You know that it is a done deal and I know that it is a done deal. Let them figure it out for themselves or go read Drudge where the NEWS FLASH they trust and believe in may enlighten them if one actually comes that tells an iota of the truth.

In other words ECW, you know they are not FULLY implementing the recommendations but you are willing to overlook the fact while pretending to hold to some standard of truth? I think not.

Had they not harped on fully implementing the recommendations as a campaign tool this would not be an issue. They did, it is. Deal with it.

[BoogyMan]

Oh, so if they leave out a single clause or phrase, that's a broken promise?:D
Why am I not surprised at weasel words in your posting?Â*Â*You just can't STAND to be wrong, can you?Â*Â*But note that I have apologized for my misstatements.


Once again Buck, you don't read.Â*Â*The democrats made a consistent drumbeat of the fact that they would FULLY implement the 9/11 commission recommendations.Â*Â*They are not going to FULLY implement them.

Weasel words?Â*Â*Now that is truly funny Buck, thanks for another good giggle.

So tell me, O World's Expert, just which recommendations the democrats are NOT gonna implement.Â*Â*I'm waiting...


Read the thread Buck.

[Buck Laser]

OK, I read the whole damned thread again, and I didn't find a single thing new. You're still harping on the word fully, despite the fact that the congress hasn't even officially taken the recommendations under consideration. That's due to happen tomorrow. And the "First Hundred Hours" begin officially tomorrow, according to the Speaker. But I'm sure you'll find a way to nitpick that, too.

I find myself wondering if, in some previous lifetime, you were a canon lawyer debating exactly how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Your "arguments" always seem to turn on fine points--like if the congress can pass most but not all of the 9/11 recommendations, you'll consider it a failure? What about the last congress?

[lily]

Boogy......I too am at a loss as to what your specific gripe is. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010801623.html?referrer=email)

House Bill Backs Additional Reforms From 9/11 Report

By Dan Eggen and Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 9, 2007; Page A01

House Democrats announced legislation yesterday aimed at implementing many
of the remaining reforms suggested by the Sept. 11 commission, including
calls for more thorough cargo screening, better emergency communications and
more money for cities at the highest risk of terrorist attack.

Democratic leaders plan to push through votes this week on a long list of
Sept. 11-related changes that were rejected by the previous
Republican-controlled Congress. The proposals signal an early willingness on
the part of House Democrats to pressure their colleagues in the Senate,
where lawmakers from both parties are cooler to some of the ideas and where
no similar package of legislation has been proposed.


Democrats say that the House proposals would implement nearly all the
remaining reforms recommended in 2004 by the bipartisan commission on the
2001 attacks, including ways to beef up funding and training for first
responders as well as calls to rewrite many U.S. policies for controlling
weapons of mass destruction and nuclear proliferation.

Former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), who served as vice chairman of
the panel, estimated that the previous Congress had enacted half the
commission's recommendations, including creating a director to oversee the
federal government's intelligence agencies. He said the "American people
will be safer" if the remaining proposals become law.

"It carries out the recommendations that we have made," Hamilton said at a
news conference yesterday with House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.)
and other Democrats. "And if this bill is enacted, then almost all of the
recommendations of the commission will have been put into law."

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the House Homeland Security
Committee, said the changes would, among other things, result in "100
percent" screening of air cargo and baggage and major ports' cargo within
four years.

The legislation calls for the establishment of a presidential office to
coordinate prevention of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. Supporters of the measure described it as necessary to direct
activities and budgets on an issue that is now spread among numerous
departments and agencies. The bill also would create an outside commission
to monitor government nonproliferation initiatives.

The Sept. 11 commission gave the administration a grade of D in following up
on its general recommendations for preventing the development and spread of
weapons of mass destruction. The Democratic legislation proposes a wide
range of initiatives to expand the scope of international cooperation and
sanctions for countries that do not cooperate.

Noting that the commission called for a significant expansion of resources
for international broadcasting and promotion of democracy, the bill calls
for a "surge capacity" of additional funding "to support United States
foreign policy objectives during a crisis abroad."

Congress's ability to push for change in these areas is limited.

"When you start on the domestic side, Congress has a lot more room to act,"
said Andrew Grotto, a nonproliferation expert at the Center for American
Progress, a liberal think tank. "On public diplomacy and the proliferation
elements, Congress's role starts to shift from direct action to more
oversight and to funding."

Republicans on the Homeland Security committee offered immediate criticism
of the package, arguing that Democrats had not followed through on promises
to enact all of the remaining commission recommendations. They complained
that Democrats were limiting debate and that many Democrats previously
opposed the changes that they are now advocating.

Edited to add which leaves about 93 hours and 40 minutes on the Democrats' 100-hour clock.

[BoogyMan]

OK, I read the whole damned thread again, and I didn't find a single thing new.Â*Â*You're still harping on the word fully, despite the fact that the congress hasn't even officially taken the recommendations under consideration.Â*Â*That's due to happen tomorrow.Â*Â*And the "First Hundred Hours" begin officially tomorrow, according to the Speaker.Â*Â*But I'm sure you'll find a way to nitpick that, too.

I find myself wondering if, in some previous lifetime, you were a canon lawyer debating exactly how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.Â*Â*Â*Â*Your "arguments" always seem to turn on fine points--like if the congress can pass most but not all of the 9/11 recommendations, you'll consider it a failure?Â*Â*What about the last congress?


Hahahahahahaha

Buck the thread is about the shiney new liberal congress not standing on their promises.Â*Â*It is not, however, about your dislike for me or your desire to take the thread off topic.

Had they not harped on fully implementing the recommendations as a campaign tool this would not be an issue.Â*Â*They did, it is.Â*Â*Deal with it.

[lily]

Hahahahahahaha

Buck the thread is about the shiney new liberal congress not standing on their promises.Â*Â*It is not, however, about your dislike for me or your desire to take the thread off topic.


Well.....actually you did in the second post.

Had they not harped on fully implementing the recommendations as a campaign tool this would not be an issue. They did, it is. Deal with it.

Seems both Hamilton and Baker are perfectly fine with what they did, as they said, this is a matter of life and death, not something you really want to rush.

[BoogyMan]

Well.....actually you did in the second post.

I don't think so, could be wrong, but don't think so. I have focused on what I consider to be attempts to operate in methods outside of what was promised.

Seems both Hamilton and Baker are perfectly fine with what they did, as they said, this is a matter of life and death, not something you really want to rush.

What they are monkeying with Lily is the oversight provision.

Appealing to Baker and Hamilton showing approval of what actually got done doesn't change the fact that the democrats are not living up to the promise of a full implementation.

[lily]

I don't think so, could be wrong, but don't think so.Â*Â*I have focused on what I consider to be attempts to operate in methods outside of what was promised.

On this I think you may be wrong. You changed the topic on your second post.



What they are monkeying with Lily is the oversight provision.

Boogy..........you've been shown two articles now, that say they aren't. They may not be doing what you like, but they are doing what the commission wants.

Appealing to Baker and Hamilton showing approval of what actually got done doesn't change the fact that the democrats are not living up to the promise of a full implementation.

Well........um........actually it does, since Hamilton was actually on the commission. I'm sorry Boogy, if he says it's good enough, I'm going to take his word over yours.

[BoogyMan]

On this I think you may be wrong. You changed the topic on your second post.

I have to respectfully disagree. I addressed the first point posted and added substantiation (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=2914&pid=32466#pid32466)for my first post (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=2914&pid=32448#pid32448)which was an additional point where the democrats have fallen short of their promises.

Boogy..........you've been shown two articles now, that say they aren't. They may not be doing what you like, but they are doing what the commission wants.

Those articles show exactly the opposite Lily. It shows they are creating a house body that is not what was recommended by the commission.

Well........um........actually it does, since Hamilton was actually on the commission. I'm sorry Boogy, if he says it's good enough, I'm going to take his word over yours.


Hamilton said "if the remaining proposals become law" which was followed up with "almost all of the recommendations of the commission will have been put into law." The republicans had implemented roughly half of the recommendations and that wasn't good enough, why should "almost all" be good enough when the democrats promised a full implementation?

[Buck Laser]

Hahahahahahaha

Buck the thread is about the shiney new liberal congress not standing on their promises. It is not, however, about your dislike for me or your desire to take the thread off topic.

Had they not harped on fully implementing the recommendations as a campaign tool this would not be an issue. They did, it is. Deal with it.


Liberal congress?? Boogy, they're democrats: I wish that equated to "liberal," but it doesn't. It means that they're slightly to the left of the old congress and, one hopes, at least slightly more honorable. It wouldn't take much, y'know.

As I said, and you seem to have missed, the congress will be getting to 9/11 tomorrow, while you've been proclaiming it a failure. I'm not exactly sure WHY you're on this kick, but I've been around here long enough to realize that you're a lot more driven by opinion than observation. And apparently you're constitutionally unable to cope with being mistaken. That's OK with me, but I learned to live with the likelihood that I'll be mistaken many times in a day. It must be tough to be as near infallible as you are, O Great Fount of Wisdom and Other Smelly Stuff. I wonder if you'll wither up to nothing when someone throws a little water on you--that would be fun to watch.

[lily]

I have to respectfully disagree.Â*Â*I addressed the first point posted and added substantiation (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=2914&pid=32466#pid32466)for my first post (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=2914&pid=32448#pid32448)which was an additional point where the democrats have fallen short of their promises.



::knocks head against the wall::

You are accusing Buck of taking the thread off topic, when it was you who took it off topic to begin with.


As for the rest..........I totally give up!

[sbannon]

Wow, Boogy, you're really nit-picking to the Nth degree on this one... I have to applaud your stamina though.

To me, saying they've missed this one recommendation so broke their promise to 'fully' implement everything seems as silly as if I said Bush hasn't violated the 3rd amendment yet, so the Bill of Rights is still rock-solid. But then I've lowered the bar for W. over the years, so I am a bit overly forgiving for him now I suppose.

[BoogyMan]

As I said, and you seem to have missed, the congress will be getting to 9/11 tomorrow, while you've been proclaiming it a failure.Â*Â*I'm not exactly sure WHY you're on this kick, but I've been around here long enough to realize that you're a lot more driven by opinion than observation.Â*Â*And apparently you're constitutionally unable to cope with being mistaken.Â*Â*That's OK with me, but I learned to live with the likelihood that I'll be mistaken many times in a day.Â*Â*It must be tough to be as near infallible as you are, O Great Fount of Wisdom and Other Smelly Stuff.Â*Â*I wonder if you'll wither up to nothing when someone throws a little water on you--that would be fun to watch.

Buck, this kind of stuff is why I so enjoy your posts. You assume so much. It makes me smile every time I read one. Thanks for that.

I have not proclaimed it a failure, I have said that they are not living up to the "fully implement" promise.

[Buck Laser]

I have not proclaimed it a failure, I have said that they are not living up to the "fully implement" promise.


Sorry, my drug-addled liberal mind is having a little trouble parsing the exquisite intricacies of your casuistry. Please elucidate for us poor plebes who are the victims of a public school education.

How do you differentiate between a "failure" and a "not fully implemented promise?"

[BoogyMan]

It is simple Buck, they lied to get elected. :D

casuistry: good word, will add it to my repertoire.

[lily]

::bangs head against the wall........AND groans::

[Buck Laser]

It is simple Buck, they lied to get elected. :D


And those who didn't lie didn't get elected?

Is it a lie anyway if they do pass the 9/11 recommendations? Or have you just decided that they're not going to? You need more than vocabulary building help, boyo.

[BoogyMan]

If they DO FULLY pass the 9/11 recommendations then I will be overjoyed that they have lived up to their promises and will stand side by side with you on this. If they mutilate the oversight recommendations like they have said they will, I will consider them liars and will be quite vocal about it.

Maybe I can borrow some of your dictionary collection! LOL

[ECW]

I have not proclaimed it a failure, I have said that they are not living up to the "fully implement" promise.


And yet they put in a separate bill to take care of the Oversight Committee and you are still whining that they didn't do it exactly like the Commission proposed? That's what you are basing your "not living up to the 'fully implement' promise" on? The oversight committee will become law and that's what the commission said our shortcoming was for better security and that's what fully implement means. You can split hairs all you want and say the Democrats are liars but you got owned on this one. You just don't know it yet.

You pissed about them taking the day off and got owned on that one.

You pissed about not fully implementing the Commission recommendations and got owned on that one as well.

Try again next time.

[BoogyMan]

I have not proclaimed it a failure, I have said that they are not living up to the "fully implement" promise.


And yet they put in a separate bill to take care of the Oversight Committee and you are still whining that they didn't do it exactly like the Commission proposed? That's what you are basing your "not living up to the 'fully implement' promise" on? The oversight committee will become law and that's what the commission said our shortcoming was for better security and that's what fully implement means. You can split hairs all you want and say the Democrats are liars but you got owned on this one. You just don't know it yet.

You pissed about them taking the day off and got owned on that one.

You pissed about not fully implementing the Commission recommendations and got owned on that one as well.

Try again next time.


As I said previously, if they mutilate the oversight recommendation it will be an unkept promise and I will be very vocal about their lie.

[ECW]

As I said previously, if they mutilate the oversight recommendation it will be an unkept promise and I will be very vocal about their lie.


Given that members of the Commission approved of the bill, I doubt the Oversight Committee will be mangled.

Promises made. Promises kept.

[Stoner]

::bangs head againstÂ*Â*the wall........AND groans::


Sounds erotic http://planetsmilies.net/obscene-smiley-1024.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

[lily]

That smilie almost poked her eye out!

[Stoner]

That smilie almost poked her eye out!


Yeah, she can also be used as a flotation device.

[Buck Laser]

If they DO FULLY pass the 9/11 recommendations then I will be overjoyed that they have lived up to their promises and will stand side by side with you on this. If they mutilate the oversight recommendations like they have said they will, I will consider them liars and will be quite vocal about it.

Maybe I can borrow some of your dictionary collection! LOL


Like you haven't been vocal about the failure you expect! You started by proclaiming that they'd already broken their promises, and dissembled to suggest that I hadn't been reading what you really said. When I did go back over it to discover that you said exactly what I accused you of saying, you just changed the subject.

I guess that I should point out to you once more that when I'm wrong, I admit it. Go thou and do likewise.:cool:

[BoogyMan]

Like you haven't been vocal about the failure you expect! You started by proclaiming that they'd already broken their promises, and dissembled to suggest that I hadn't been reading what you really said.Â*Â*When I did go back over it to discover that you said exactly what I accused you of saying, you just changed the subject.

I guess that I should point out to you once more that when I'm wrong, I admit it.Â*Â*Go thou and do likewise.:cool:


Buck, you don't seem to be willing to consider my point so have a nice day. If they monkey with the recommendation for oversight, which they are obviously planning to do, they have broken their promise! So if you call dissembling Buck go ahead.

I havent been wrong yet Buck, you just don't like my line of argumentation.

[Buck Laser]

I havent been wrong yet Buck, you just don't like my line of argumentation.

:P:P: You're a FUNNY one!:D:D

[BoogyMan]

Well, if nothing else, we find each other amusing. :D

[ECW]

Like you haven't been vocal about the failure you expect! You started by proclaiming that they'd already broken their promises, and dissembled to suggest that I hadn't been reading what you really said.Â*Â*When I did go back over it to discover that you said exactly what I accused you of saying, you just changed the subject.

I guess that I should point out to you once more that when I'm wrong, I admit it.Â*Â*Go thou and do likewise.:cool:


Buck, you don't seem to be willing to consider my point so have a nice day.Â*Â*If they monkey with the recommendation for oversight, which they are obviously planning to do, they have broken their promise!Â*Â*So if you call dissembling Buck go ahead.

I havent been wrong yet Buck, you just don't like my line of argumentation.


If the promise was to create an oversight committee and they create the oversight committee that is different than the commission suggested but the changes are made with the approval of committee members, the promise is kept and you are splitting hairs to preserve your outrage. No wonder the GOP last Congress lasn election with that kind of logic.

The people wanted action to protect the republic and your party failed to give it to them. The Democrats do and it's not to your liking because something got changed in the implementation? You are so totally clueless as to how Washington works if you think that when a proposal is made that it is passed in exactly the same form that it was submitted.

That is so reminicent of how Chimpy & Company like to frame their "bipartisan" claim it isn't funny; Chimpy makes a proposal and wants Democratic support but won't allow Democrats to change a thing about the proposal. When Democrats refuse to jump on board he accuses them of not acting in the best interests of the country. Your claim that Democrats "broke" their promise is in that same neocon ballpark.

Egads!

[Buck Laser]

Boogy, since you make your own rules, I have no idea what will satisfy you, but I thought you might be interested in seeing the vote totals on the 9/11 recommendations.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll015.xml

I tried posting the text here, but the format didn't transfer. Nevertheless, all the democrats voted for it.

But I don't suppose that makes you wrong yet.:(

[Stoner]

Well the libs have already broken 1 promise. What's the over/under line for the entire year. I might be interested in wagering on the over side.

[Buck Laser]

Well the libs have already broken 1 promise. What's the over/under line for the entire year. I might be interested in wagering on the over side.

What are you talking about?

[Labrocca]

Wow this thread exploded. It's been mostly civil (though not entirely).

I think we should let the topic rest for a few more days...let's see what they do before we make any more speculations. There are a lot of people in this thread who are gonna be wrong one way or the other.

[Stoner]

Found a good article about this foul-up by the libs.

http://vote.com/magazine/columns/dickmorris/column60457367.phtml

[ECW]

Yep. Dick Morris. The voice of reason.

A whore monger and sellout shall lead them...