BLOG VIEW  |  HEADLINE VIEW
SUBMIT NEWS  |  RSS FEED  |  SEARCH

Dems Kill War With Sweet Cash

TUESDAY APRIL 29 2008 6:00 AM

Submitted by FearTheReaper. Edited By erin_broadley.

TAGS: Iraq War, Democrats, Nancy Pelosi

Looking at all the money Democrats are about to throw at Iraq, you’d think the country was having a bar mitzvah. House Democrats are putting together the latest spending bill – and it’s a fucking bonanza. The bill will fund the war through Bush’s presidency and six months into the next president’s term. It will be the largest spending bill to date. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee!


Democrats are in fact planning on not only providing the $108 billion to fund the war through the Sept. 30, the end of the 2008 budget year, but they're likely to add another $70 billion for next year so they don't have to vote on war funding again in the fall election season.


Remember all those Democrats who ran on the promise to stop the war in ’06? Turns out they were full of shit. Hard to believe politicians are full of shit, isn’t it? Looks like they are going to bet the farm on a Democrat winning the presidency in November -- but if that doesn’t happen, we can expect these spineless fucks to continue the war for an eternity. And they know it’s going to piss people off.


“It’s going to be a tough sell to convince people in my district that funding the war for six months into the new president’s term is the way to end the war,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a leader of the Out of Iraq Caucus who plans to oppose the funding. “It sounds like we are paying for something we don’t want.”


You know why it sounds like that, Lynn? Because we are paying for something we don’t want. Crazy, huh? A solid majority of Americans are done with the war. Most of them were wrong when they supported the invasion, which makes them fucking idiots, but that’s an argument that we are never going to have.

The bill is going to throw $178 billion at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. How awesome is that? Especially when you factor in the total lack of oversight on the billions of private contractors who seem to not be doing shit. Oh, and the occupation is a complete waste of our time and energy. We may as well throw the money into an outhouse and light it on fire.

Democrats are, of course, rolling over like twunts because they don’t want to appear weak on national security. Apparently, the best way to show you have a spine is to cave on what you believe in. Dems think halting funding for the war will cost them the majority of both branches of Congress. Which is obvious, because polls show the majority of Americans want to pull out of Iraq. See, in Democrats victim thought process, if the majority of people want to pull out, then the majority of people would be mad if they pulled out. Get it?

Nancy Pelosi is using a strategy called “guns and butter.” That means she will try to get Bush to agree to domestic spending in exchange for murder money. Good luck with that, Nance. Bush has already said he would veto any spending over his $108 billion request. He knows you are a fucking coward and will roll over in a second. The reason he knows this is because you always roll over like a coward. It’s not hard to figure out.

Bush will also easily win the domestic spending battle, because Democrats won’t want to be painted as “tax and spend” liberals. So, they'll cave since the best politicians don't stand up for what they believe in because they might be called names.


“We’re going to insist that this is about funding the troops and nothing else,” House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.


I have no doubt about that, because you basically run the place, John. You certainly get what you want.

Democrats will probably try the same thing they did in May, when they split up the bill and had two votes; one for domestic spending and the other for the war. That way, a bunch of Democrats could say they voted against war spending, while a bunch of others Democrats voted for it. It’s spineless by association and nobody gives a shit how you don’t do it. All that matters is you didn’t do anything to change the course of the occupation.

The Democrats have a great reason for not doing anything about the war, though.


“No,” Pelosi acknowledged. “It didn’t happen because we had hoped that the president would listen to the will of the people and at least be willing to compromise on … how the war is conducted and some timetable for redeployment of our troops.”


Uh, you control the funding for the war. If you don’t write up a budget for the war, there is no war. You’re just a bunch of pussies because you don’t want Republicans to say you’re putting US troops at risk by shutting off funds. You know, the thing that will happen anyway, at some point, maybe in 20 years, when you decided to stop the war. Oh, and your logic is a bit flawed. You, "hoped Bush would listen to the will of the people?" Seriously? Americans voted to give Democrats a majority because they thought you'd do something about the war, not do nothing in order to use Iraq as a campaign fundraising tool and meat for stump speeches. Our government wasn't constructed as a hint machine. When people vote for you, it is because they want you to act. They don't vote people into Congress, hoping the president will get the hint. America could have just left Republicans in charge and each sent George Bush a personal letter. What a fucking ridiculous woman.

When McCain gets elected, we will get to watch this nonsense for four more years. Because, if you haven't noticed, Democrats have no plan for that possibility.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

livertarian

livertarian

Fairfax, VA
February 2008

APR 29, 2008 05:54 PM

I read this and wonder why people are so dismissive of third party voting. The reasons I've heard to date are unconvincing.

Shiny_metal_ass

Shiny_metal_ass

I'm lost
October 2006

APR 29, 2008 06:09 PM

Probably because there hasn't been a third party worth voting for?

coyotemike

coyotemike

Kearney, NE
May 2006

APR 29, 2008 06:21 PM

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
Probably because there hasn't been a third party worth voting for?



You mean you don't want to vote for someone that only appeals to 10% of the population?

livertarian

livertarian

Fairfax, VA
February 2008

APR 29, 2008 06:26 PM

coyotemike said:

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
Probably because there hasn't been a third party worth voting for?



You mean you don't want to vote for someone that only appeals to 10% of the population?



Weak and Weaker.

coyotemike

coyotemike

Kearney, NE
May 2006

APR 29, 2008 06:36 PM

livertarian said:

coyotemike said:

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
Probably because there hasn't been a third party worth voting for?



You mean you don't want to vote for someone that only appeals to 10% of the population?



Weak and Weaker.



It's weak that I won't vote for someone I don't agree with?

livertarian

livertarian

Fairfax, VA
February 2008

APR 29, 2008 06:48 PM

coyotemike said:

livertarian said:

coyotemike said:

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
Probably because there hasn't been a third party worth voting for?



You mean you don't want to vote for someone that only appeals to 10% of the population?



Weak and Weaker.



It's weak that I won't vote for someone I don't agree with?



No, that's not weak. What I call weak is the idea that if only 10% of the population is going for it, it must not be any good.

coyotemike

coyotemike

Kearney, NE
May 2006

APR 29, 2008 06:54 PM

livertarian said:

coyotemike said:

livertarian said:

coyotemike said:

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
Probably because there hasn't been a third party worth voting for?



You mean you don't want to vote for someone that only appeals to 10% of the population?



Weak and Weaker.



It's weak that I won't vote for someone I don't agree with?



No, that's not weak. What I call weak is the idea that if only 10% of the population is going for it, it must not be any good.



That would be how democracy works.

scylis

scylis

Anchorage, AK
November 2004

APR 29, 2008 06:59 PM

livertarian said:

coyotemike said:

livertarian said:

coyotemike said:

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
Probably because there hasn't been a third party worth voting for?



You mean you don't want to vote for someone that only appeals to 10% of the population?



Weak and Weaker.



It's weak that I won't vote for someone I don't agree with?



No, that's not weak. What I call weak is the idea that if only 10% of the population is going for it, it must not be any good.



well, if they're so wonderful, then why don't they have more than 10% of the country behind them?

spyder13

spyder13

San Francisco, CA
October 2006

APR 29, 2008 07:04 PM

"When McCain gets elected..." is a scary thought, but one I have been telling friends and family is a far greater possibility than they think. I am considering a move to Canada if that happens!

livertarian

livertarian

Fairfax, VA
February 2008

APR 29, 2008 07:04 PM

My apologies Mike, i think we had a misunderstanding.

I think this might be better: The assumption that a third party is neither desirable nor electable due to poll numbers alone is weak.

I bet many great and successful ideas started with 10% nationwide support, or less. I'm sure there was a time when less than 10% of voting Americans would have done away with slavery. I'm sure that the number of Americans who would decriminalize drugs is still pretty low, but I strongly believe that will be a positive development if we can ever swing it.

strndniowa

strndniowa

Grimes, IA
May 2007

APR 29, 2008 07:36 PM

livertarian said:

coyotemike said:

livertarian said:

coyotemike said:

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
Probably because there hasn't been a third party worth voting for?



You mean you don't want to vote for someone that only appeals to 10% of the population?



Weak and Weaker.



It's weak that I won't vote for someone I don't agree with?



No, that's not weak. What I call weak is the idea that if only 10% of the population is going for it, it must not be any good.


Weak would be the idea of putting the sheer amount of effort you have into a lost cause?

livertarian

livertarian

Fairfax, VA
February 2008

APR 29, 2008 07:40 PM

strndniowa said:

livertarian said:

coyotemike said:

livertarian said:

coyotemike said:

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
Probably because there hasn't been a third party worth voting for?



You mean you don't want to vote for someone that only appeals to 10% of the population?



Weak and Weaker.



It's weak that I won't vote for someone I don't agree with?



No, that's not weak. What I call weak is the idea that if only 10% of the population is going for it, it must not be any good.


Weak would be the idea of putting the sheer amount of effort you have into a lost cause?



To me, voting for a Dem or Rep in a federal election is a lost cause, and has been for some time now.

MschfMayhemSoap

MschfMayhemSoap

Phoenix, AZ
April 2006

APR 29, 2008 07:59 PM

spyder13 said:
"When McCain gets elected..." is a scary thought, but one I have been telling friends and family is a far greater possibility than they think. I am considering a move to Canada if that happens!



Seconded. biggrin

strndniowa

strndniowa

Grimes, IA
May 2007

APR 29, 2008 08:41 PM

livertarian said:

strndniowa said:

livertarian said:

coyotemike said:

livertarian said:

coyotemike said:
Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
Probably because there hasn't been a third party worth voting for?



You mean you don't want to vote for someone that only appeals to 10% of the population?



Weak and Weaker.



It's weak that I won't vote for someone I don't agree with?



No, that's not weak. What I call weak is the idea that if only 10% of the population is going for it, it must not be any good.


Weak would be the idea of putting the sheer amount of effort you have into a lost cause?



To me, voting for a Dem or Rep in a federal election is a lost cause, and has been for some time now.

It's not a lost cause--just damn close to it...
Think of it as pushing the rudder one way or another on a sinking boat- still better then drilling holes in it...

USMCSGT

USMCSGT

I'm lost
November 2006

APR 30, 2008 01:32 AM

This is why I don't vote for either party. I didn't want the war, I went to the war, one of my buddies left yesterday for the war. And what are they doing? Prolonging it when they said they wouldn't.They have the power to stop it and they don't. Jesus Christ why does anyone believe politicians? I can't stand either party and yet the average stupid American buys into their bullshit and look what it got us.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

McCain Picks A Vagina

Last Comment 48 MIN by emotedcreations

McCain Picks A Vagina

Last Comment 48 MIN

I will be watching SNL tonight for the first time in a long long time just to see if they do anything... More ...

Trent Reznor Is Stone-Cold Fuck Awesome.

Last Comment 1 HR

we had a noise music group a long time ago, but it got closed because nobody had anything to say. so... More ...

Free Slacker Uprising To Free America

Last Comment 1 HR

You know, like when the Democrats in charge of the Florida Election Commission handed the election to... More ...

Crybaby Town

Last Comment 2 HR by scylis

Crybaby Town

Last Comment 2 HR

her views on abortion only come into play with her daughter being pregnant because of how they worded... More ...

EA's "Dead Space" Goes Viral

Last Comment 5 HR by J24U

EA's "Dead Space" Goes Viral

Last Comment 5 HR

I'm digging the comic book, Ben Templesmith is the artist. And yeah, so far the story is much darker... More ...

SuicideGirls Interview: Terry Gilliam
SuicideGirls Interview: David Carradine
SuicideGirls Interview: Laura Dern