Democrats "Put Up" pr "Shut Up"

[Habermill]

Time Now For Democrats To "Put Up" or "Shut Up"
by Roland Kochen
November 16, 2006


Now that the Democrats have taken control of both houses of Congress, it is time for them to "put up." The sad reality of the situation is, both parties are prone to only complain when the opposite party is in charge, but when it comes their turn to run the ship of state, they usually wind up doing a bunch of nothing.

For several years, Democrats have squawked about two subjects that they should now make a priority to address. One is the misnamed Patriot Act, and the second is the ill-fated war in Iraq.

Let's face it: the USA Patriot Act is a bane to freedom! It abridges constitutional protection of our liberties, bloats federal police powers to a level rivaling the Third Reich, and does more to enslave the American people than it does to protect them from terrorists.

Democrats have repeatedly criticized the Patriot Act. In fact, they have mostly been the ones to faithfully vote against it in legislative session. This is commendable. However, now that they will control majorities in both the House and Senate, it is time to pass legislation to bring the Patriot Act into conformity with the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Anything less will mean that the Democrats were just so much hot air. I suspect their objections were just that.

Remember, it was Bill Clinton and Al Gore that first offered their version of the Patriot Act back in the 1990's. You will recall that it was rejected by a Republican-controlled Congress. (Isn't it amazing how power seems to determine legislation's worth or lack thereof?) In the end, both parties are pro-big government. I don't look for Democrats to do anything to rein in this out-of-control, police-state mentality in Washington, D.C.

Secondly, if there was one issue that turned the tide in favor of Democrats in this last election, it was the war in Iraq. The vast majority of the American people rightly believe we should never have invaded Iraq, and that to continue our occupation of Iraq only serves to demoralize our own country, including our military forces, and strengthen our adversaries.

The problem is, we have dug a huge hole in Iraq that will be extremely difficult to extricate ourselves from. No matter how we try to do it, the results will only reveal the fallacy of thinking we could ever "democratize" a nation such as Iraq. It was an impossible dream from the beginning, which only leads people (including me) to speculate that there had to be another reason prompting President Bush to invade. I believe history will place the invasion of Iraq among the worst political/military decisions of all time, and will probably doom Bush's presidential ranking to among the all-time worst.

So, what will Democrats do about Iraq? Will they continue to fund a continuation, and even expansion, of the war? Will they push the White House for some kind of timely withdrawal? At the same time, will they be willing to acknowledge the threat that militant Muslims pose to America? And will they sacrifice America's overall military readiness on the altar of Iraq? How the Democratic Party answers those questions will largely determine whether this election was the beginning of a political monopoly or whether it will be a one-year flash-in-the-pan. I expect they will push through some type of withdrawal from Iraq. However, this will be delicate and very problematic and could just as easily backfire on them.

One thing we can anticipate without risk of misjudgment is that the Democratic-controlled Congress will work hand-in-glove with President George W. Bush in further opening the floodgates of illegal immigration. Amnesty for illegals is now an absolute certainty. The North American Union is a certainty. The NAFTA super highway is a certainty. In this area, Bush is probably happy that Democrats won the election. The only opposition he had to his dream of creating a hemispheric government was from conservatives within his own party. Now that they are out of power, he has no opposition to speak of.

Democrats have been given a chance to see if they are capable of doing something right. I doubt that they are. In all likelihood, Democrats will resort to their diabolical promotion of liberal social issues such as embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, and abortion.

In such an event, will voters redundantly and robotically return to a worn-out GOP, or will they seek a viable independent party? For the sake of our country's future, I sincerely hope it is the latter.

[biker]

The Dems don't have enough of a majority to actually do anything.

But rather decry "gridlock", I celebrate "stability".

[biker]

I just heard Charlie Rangel on "The Big Story" say that the Congress lacks authority to decide on matters of war and peace.

Is he nuts?

The declaration of war is one repsonsiblity reserved exclusively for Congress.

So apparently, the Democratic "leadership" thinks that it can continue to criticize from the sidelines without joining in the decisions.

Might be smart politics. But terrible for the country.

[CheektowagaFan]

Hey Biker now I know why the stupid COMMENTS come from you! You must have failed History as well in School!

Congress doest havent 2/3rd's Of th Majority of the Vote to Over- Ride the President.

So since you have been proven WRONG AGAIN know what you are saying before you say something out of the side of your mouth Son!

[LHardy]

If they cannot get a 2/3rds majority to overide the President.
It is because the overide would be wrong.
If it was the right thing to do they would overide the President, given the assumed state of affairs that the DNC has complain about and claim elevated them to power.

[colossus27]

I'm sure that somewhere we're all happy that this idiot of a president is now a lame duck. And the morally mature American in all of us is sad that Tom "I only hate those disgusting fags when I need your vote, my Catholic constituents" Reynolds got re-elected by people too damn stupid to govern themselves.

This news is not without a price. Instead of pissing money away on stupid crap like the V22 Osprey, deregulated electricity, and subsidized prescriptions- none of which the dems will change- we'll have to deal with additional crap.

The democrats, not content to cater to the moderates that declared them Winner, are still sucking the henna-stained tadgers of the tree-hugging waterheads.

Nancy Pelosi- who's district includes Berkely, CA, and other moderate areas of California such as SF, will soon bore us even more on CSPAN.... And now, this walking organ bank Boxer is already starting up the junkscience....

Mark my words- we'll end up dumping more cash into this global warming than we do to get away from middle eastern oil. If it is actually our fault, wouldn't it make sense to get away from fossil fuels instead? Kyoto is just a signature away. This nonsense is brought to you by the same junk-science waterheads that still think socialised medicine will work- to the point where they bankrupted what, 16 domestic vaccine producers in a little over 5 years...

We're truly hosed on this one, mark my words. Pay extra close attention to nobody in the DNC calling for China or India to conform to Kyoto's requirements. They're both exempted. I can smell the patchouli and see the hairy armpits of the ignorant granola-moms already....

[300miles]

Not sure I understand the Over-Ride statement above. If the president wants a war and congress votes on the war... what is there to over-ride?

The constitution states only Congress can declare war. But the whole notion of what is a war, has been muddied. We go into wars now without declaring them 'wars' first.

[biker]

Hey Biker now I know why the stupid COMMENTS come from you! You must have failed History as well in School!

Congress doest havent 2/3rd's Of th Majority of the Vote to Over- Ride the President.

So since you have been proven WRONG AGAIN know what you are saying before you say something out of the side of your mouth Son!

How to plumb the levels of idiocy in your post, ChicktovegasFan??

First idiotic comment of yours:

Congress doest havent 2/3rd's Of th Majority of the Vote to Over- Ride the President.

What kind of idiotic nonsense is this?

Congress doesn't have 2/3rd's of itself to over-ride a Presidential veto?

What kind of stupid, idiotic rambling is that.

Did you mean that the Democrats don't have a 2/3rd majority?

Probably you did.

But I have no sympathy or mercy for someone who leads off with complaining how stoooooopid I am in a post.

Now that we've got the substance of your IDIOTIC post a little closer to reality, what point did you want to make, pinhead?

[biker]

So since you have been proven WRONG AGAIN know what you are saying before you say something out of the side of your mouth Son!

Since you were so immature on the first part of your inane post, what does this mean?

Or are you a coward like Speaker and are now going to run away and not support your statements.

[Linda_D]

First off, there has never been a declaration of war with Iraq. Congress authorized the POTUS to use force if necessary.

The POTUS is the Commander-in-Chief of the US military. Congress has the formal power to declare war. However, since WWII, the US hasn't fought a declared war, albeit that tens of thousands of young Americans have died in combat. Presidents have simply used their C-in-C authority to send troops into combat. Since the Vietnam War, Congress has tried to curb the POTUS' power to prosecute undeclared wars, but the only effective means of doing so is to refuse to pass appropriations for the military actions, which means "punishing" the troops in the field for what the POTUS has done or failed to do, which isn't going to happen.

If it was any other POTUS sitting in the Oval Office, there might be some realistic movement, however glacial, toward finding a solution to get American troops out of Iraq without simply leaving the Iraqis to their fate. Bush Jr is incrediby obstinate, surrounded by "yes men", and advised by Karl Rove. He'll pay lip service to finding a "solution" to ending the war, but he'll "stay the course" under various names until he leaves office on January 20, 2009.

[mikewrona]

I just heard Charlie Rangel on "The Big Story" say that the Congress lacks authority to decide on matters of war and peace.

Is he nuts?

The declaration of war is one repsonsiblity reserved exclusively for Congress.

So apparently, the Democratic "leadership" thinks that it can continue to criticize from the sidelines without joining in the decisions.

Might be smart politics. But terrible for the country.

The first post in this thread appeared Nov. 16th. In order for your statement to be true Rangel would have had to be on Nov. 16 or later.

The Fox News archive shows Charley Rangel as a guest on the Big Story. Nov. 6th. ten days before "you just heard him"

Something is fishy. They didn't talk about the war.


The Big Story w/ John Gibson
My Word
NEWS ARCHIVE

Interview Archive
Geraldo Rivera on O.J. Simpson Bombshell
November 16, 2006
Ben Stein on Congress Power Shift, Economy
November 15, 2006
How Will Democratic-Led Congress Impact Your Wallet?
November 09, 2006
Rep. Charlie Rangel on Future of Bush Tax Cuts
November 06, 2006
Tony Snow on Kerry's Iraq Flap, Midterms
November 03, 2006
Donald Trump's Flag Fight
November 02, 2006
Rep. Duncan Hunter on Announcing 2008 Presidential Bid
October 31, 2006
'Death of a President' Director Defends Film
October 27, 2006
Ann Coulter on Iraq, Midterms
October 26, 2006
Inside America's Obsession With Plastic Surgery
October 25, 2006
Political Panel Predicts Midterm Outcome
October 24, 2006
Rep. Pete Hoekstra on Suspending Dem Staffer Over NIE Leak
October 23, 2006
Paul McCartney, Heather Mills Divorce Gets Nasty
October 20, 2006


But Republican Ben Stein was on "The Big Picture" Nov. 15th. and the transcript does show that he said, the Democrats can't do anything about Iraq.
Someone can't tell the truth and can't get the propaganda straight.

[biker]

First off, there has never been a declaration of war with Iraq. Congress authorized the POTUS to use force if necessary.

The POTUS is the Commander-in-Chief of the US military. Congress has the formal power to declare war. However, since WWII, the US hasn't fought a declared war, albeit that tens of thousands of young Americans have died in combat. Presidents have simply used their C-in-C authority to send troops into combat. Since the Vietnam War, Congress has tried to curb the POTUS' power to prosecute undeclared wars, but the only effective means of doing so is to refuse to pass appropriations for the military actions, which means "punishing" the troops in the field for what the POTUS has done or failed to do, which isn't going to happen.

If it was any other POTUS sitting in the Oval Office, there might be some realistic movement, however glacial, toward finding a solution to get American troops out of Iraq without simply leaving the Iraqis to their fate. Bush Jr is incrediby obstinate, surrounded by "yes men", and advised by Karl Rove. He'll pay lip service to finding a "solution" to ending the war, but he'll "stay the course" under various names until he leaves office on January 20, 2009.

Congress would rather sit on the sidelines and point fingers and complain. Charlie Rangle sure just wants to sit on the sidelines.

[biker]

The first post in this thread appeared Nov. 16th. In order for your statement to be true Rangel would have had to be on Nov. 16 or later.

The Fox News archive shows Charley Rangel as a guest on the Big Story. Nov. 6th. ten days before "you just heard him"

Something is fishy. They didn't talk about the war.


The Big Story w/ John Gibson
My Word
NEWS ARCHIVE

Interview Archive
Geraldo Rivera on O.J. Simpson Bombshell
November 16, 2006
Ben Stein on Congress Power Shift, Economy
November 15, 2006
How Will Democratic-Led Congress Impact Your Wallet?
November 09, 2006
Rep. Charlie Rangel on Future of Bush Tax Cuts
November 06, 2006
Tony Snow on Kerry's Iraq Flap, Midterms
November 03, 2006
Donald Trump's Flag Fight
November 02, 2006
Rep. Duncan Hunter on Announcing 2008 Presidential Bid
October 31, 2006
'Death of a President' Director Defends Film
October 27, 2006
Ann Coulter on Iraq, Midterms
October 26, 2006
Inside America's Obsession With Plastic Surgery
October 25, 2006
Political Panel Predicts Midterm Outcome
October 24, 2006
Rep. Pete Hoekstra on Suspending Dem Staffer Over NIE Leak
October 23, 2006
Paul McCartney, Heather Mills Divorce Gets Nasty
October 20, 2006


But Republican Ben Stein was on "The Big Picture" Nov. 15th. and the transcript does show that he said, the Democrats can't do anything about Iraq.
Someone can't tell the truth and can't get the propaganda straight.

I don't care if you can't find it in one of your doctored citations; I heard the guy this afternoon.

At least Charlie didn't talk about "Hezzaballoo" today.

[mikewrona]

I don't care if you can't find it in one of your doctored citations; I heard the guy this afternoon.

At least Charlie didn't talk about "Hezzaballoo" today.

You didn't hear him on 'The Big Picture"

As far as a "doctored citation" goes, everyone should go to the Fox News web page. Check "The Big Picture," click on the archives, and let biker know when Charley Rangel was on and what he said.

Then do the same for Ben Stein.

[biker]

You didn't hear him on 'The Big Picture"

As far as a "doctored citation" goes, everyone should go to the Fox News web page. Check "The Big Picture," click on the archives, and let biker know when Charley Rangel was on and what he said.

Then do the same for Ben Stein.

I never wrote "The Big Picture".

It's "The Big Story".