California Congressmen Pete Stark owes American soldiers an apology v.ugh

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 7960

Still waiting.

As long as they have to do do anything more than what they're doing right now that costs money, basic logic dictates that it'd cost more

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

As long as they have to do do anything more than what they're doing right now that costs money, basic logic dictates that it'd cost more

if they're going to send people without an option then pay and incentives for a volunteer army go down.

[motivez]

Yeah, I didn't think about benefit reductions

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Oh I have no doubt that some - even many - might genuinely be offended but this is about our republic and democracy, if our politicians are outraged over what he said, they should be abhorred by the actions of our adminstration that has undermined the ideals it was supposed to protect.

I don't care about one being worse than the other or "measuring against right or wrong". What I care about is what harms freedom and makes us less secure - what Stark said did nothing to harm either, what Bush has done clearly has and it this this our leaders should focus their attention on - not mere words.

I take exception to both your conclusions. The idea that this constant use of "the children" by the Democrat party in so many instances to support more government Nanny State programs does not harm our freedom. And second the idea that the Bush whitehouse has undermined ideals? That is clearly a matter of debate even if one protests so loudly. It is not the same as saying mistakes have been made.

But we are responsible in either case and helping other people secure liberty to the best of their ability is part of our ideals. Retreating from the world while we protect our boundries would be much simpler. The notion that the political oppostion has some licence for outragious statements as long as they demonstrate no direct harm is rather a poor reflection on leadership and responsibility. Don't you think?

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I take exception to both your conclusions. The idea that this constant use of "the children" by the Democrat party in so many instances to support more government Nanny State programs does not harm our freedom. And second the idea that the Bush whitehouse has undermined ideals? That is clearly a matter of debate even if one protests so loudly. It is not the same as saying mistakes have been made.

The following image is doctored. The GOP would never stoop so low as to use children for political purposes.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

The following image is doctored. The GOP would never stoop so low as to use children for political purposes.

I think that picture was taken when he vetoed the Stem Cell research bill..sometimes you just gotta step back and given the republicans props - the democrats wish they could do propaganda this well!

[JaJae]

CNN showing Bush holding a child is propaganda? Should the President of the United States never go near children when those pesky CNN photographers might be around to spread the GOP propaganda?

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by JaJae

CNN showing Bush holding a child is propaganda? Should the President of the United States never go near children when those pesky CNN photographers might be around to spread the GOP propaganda?

They hauled in a busload of children and their mommies when he vetoed the stem cell bill. He used them for a political purpose...just like what Pelosi did.

Both sides do it, and that is politics. I just posted it to remind Nixon that his party isn't above crap like that.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

The following image is doctored. The GOP would never stoop so low as to use children for political purposes.

Kissing babies in public is old politics. You think you just discovered something? But multi-billion dollar programs to give government health insurance to children of families well above even the median income and call it helping the poor children, that is a new stunt. If you want to sell the public on National Health Insurance why can't you be honest about it? Why do Democrats need to claim people don't care about children if they don't support this? Perhaps it is because you think voters are stupid and need to be tricked into someone elses good intentions?

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Kissing babies in public is old politics. You think you just discovered something? But multi-billion dollar programs to give government health insurance to children of families well above even the median income and call it helping the poor children, that is a new stunt. If you want to sell the public on National Health Insurance why can't you be honest about it? Why do Democrats need to claim people don't care about children if they don't support this? Perhaps it is because you think voters are stupid and need to be tricked into someone elses good intentions?

and you don't think that was the message with the photo op I posted? Get serious. Christ.


I'm merely pointing out to you that it is kind of hypocritical for the GOP to whine and cry about using kids for political purposes. I am not arguing about the specifics of the SCHIP program.

[Pro Street]

pressuring people to apologize for a remark like that is one of the things wrong with this country. You cannot have a political debate, let alone an arena, such as Congress, without having points such as this.

[Roger_W_Isom]

I CAN ONLY SAY this as of now....
WHO WOULD potentially gain from having PETE STARK apologize...
MY READ ON THAT SIT IS simple
HILLARY FORCED Stark to do that and THAT BLUNDER is gong to COST HER BIG TIME in the upcoming PRIMARIES Indeed....
IF, and this is a MIGHTY BIG IF, She survives super Tuesday I could EASILY see a FULL FLEDGED OPEN REVOLTED among the democratic convention delegates in DENVER and they simply REFUSE TO CAST THEIR BALLOTS as a PROTEST against her actions

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

pressuring people to apologize for a remark like that is one of the things wrong with this country. You cannot have a political debate, let alone an arena, such as Congress, without having points such as this.

if you make statements in a political arena than you own it and have to answer for it.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

if you make statements in a political arena than you own it and have to answer for it.

which means no reasonto apologize

[hereticzero]

Originally Posted by 7960

You have any proof of this or is this just your assumption?

You have any proof that shows it's cheaper? Cost of enforcement, jail time, food, gas, etc. It all adds up to enforce a law against someone. Why do you think your city counsel raises your taxes every time they decide to write new law? It takes money to enforce a law against people. It costs a lot more than having people voluntarily join up. The govt. always takes the cheap way out. If a draft were cheaper than a volunteer army, you don't think the govt. would have started it by now?

[Darko]

He can resign right after Bush does. Ohh and John Gibson is a fucking tool.

[Darko]

I think Bush's bring it on statement is far worse. That along with hundreds of other dumbs things he has said. Ohh that and taking us to war when we didn't have to and fudging it up.

[RMNIXON]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With Congress and the White House engaged in a long-running feud over war funds, President George W. Bush criticized Democrats on Saturday for holding up money he requested for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Bush is seeking $196 billion for the wars for the fiscal year beginning October 1. Democrats who control Congress want to attach a troop pullout plan to the funding bill for the war but lack enough votes to pass the measure in the Senate.

The White House has warned that Bush would veto any bill with such conditions.

In his weekly radio address, Bush said Congress was "failing to meet its responsibilities to our troops."

"For months, Congress has delayed action on supplemental war funding because some in Congress want to make a political statement about the war," he said, criticizing Democrats for leaving for their Thanksgiving break without approving the war funds.

A bill passed this week by the House of Representatives would have given Bush about a quarter of the $196 billion he wants for the wars while setting a goal that all U.S. combat soldiers withdraw from Iraq by December 15, 2008.
Republicans stopped the measure in the Senate.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would not bring another Iraq war funding bill to the House floor this year.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has warned that without a cash infusion, he would soon make plans to lay off civilian employees, terminate contracts and cut base operations.

But Democrats said Gates told them the money crunch was months away.

Bush accused Democrats of trying to micromanage the war.

"We do not need members of Congress telling our commanders what to do," he said.

Venting anger at Bush for vetoing domestic-spending bills while seeking billions for Iraq, Democrats have vowed they will not give him a "blank check" for the war.