Reply By: danielostPosted: Saturday, November 17, 2007what ever

Is that your response when YOU are proven WRONG?

An annual effort to balance federal spending in such areas as forestry, education, space technology, and the national defense, with revenue, which the United States collects largely through federal taxes.

Of the three branches of the U.S. government, Congress has the power to determine federal spending, pursuant to Article I, Section 9, of the U.S. Constitution, which states, "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." The drafters of the Constitution sought to secure the federal SPENDING POWER with legislators rather than the president, to keep separate the powers of purse and sword. In The Federalist No. 58, JAMES MADISON wrote, "This power of the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people."

no that is my response when babble incoherently and or tell out and out lies.

congress can fund or not fund the troops.


they cannot tell the president how to deploy the troops.


putting a deadline on when they have to come home is telling the president how to deploy the troops.


by the way telling the enamy when you are going to pull out really is a DEAD LINE. because that is when they are going to hit you just hard as they can. don't believe me ask the british what happened when they pulled out some of their troops after announcing that they would be pulling out. that secter was secure hadn't had any or few problems with insurgents. yet on the day that they announced that they were going to leave. that secter got hit hard.

this is why bush and the generals do not want a pull out date. yet you a supposed col. are so stupid that you cannot/will not or just plain are to blind to see this.

you want dead american soldiers you the bad guys what day we are going to pull out.

further example the day we pulled out of vietnam was the day that the other side hit that city the hardest they had ever hit anything.

and i am still waiting for you to answer me on my latest thread.

but as i have said YOU SIR ARE A COWARD.

Reply By: danielostPosted: Saturday, November 17, 2007congress can fund or not fund the troops.they cannot tell the president how to deploy the troops. putting a deadline on when they have to come home is telling the president how to deploy the troops.

Congress can limit the funding so that the President CAN NOT continue or must limit the war in Iraq. Congress can also set what the money can be spent on and that would include a restriction on spending for the Iraq War. READ Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. Bush during his first six years got his way because the GOP controlled Congress Rubber Stamped what Bush requested. That is OVER and Bush needs to understand the difference between a Budget REQUEST and DEMAND. Bush does not have the power to DEMAND. He is NOT THE DECIDER on federal Spending!

The spending issue goes far beyond Iraq. Bush is attempting to set the spending levels HE WANTS in ALL areas of the government. He must be made to understand that is not within his authority!

Time for remedial Reading Comprehension, yet again, Gene.

What you are saying is that Congressional spending legislation should not be subject to a veto. Well, guess what... it is. And if Congress has the will to override a spending bill veto, then it will have had the "final say" on the Budget.

And you are the very sort of thought-free goon that the Dems have in mind when they try, lacking the guts or conviction of their own ideals, to throw veto-triggers into otherwise desirable (in their view) legislation, legislation that they fear might not pass. Typical Dem political philosophy - WHEN YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING, DO NOTHING & CLAIM EVERYTHING.

Reply By: DaiwaPosted: Saturday, November 17, 2007Better read the Constitution. Congress NOT the President has the final say on the Budget. The problem we have is that Bush does not understand the meaning of some very basic words. He sent a REQUEST for funding to Congress. That does not mean DEMAND. Bush got use to having Congress act like his requests were demands during the first six years of his administration. It is TIME TO END that process!!Time for remedial Reading Comprehension, yet again, Gene.What you are saying is that Congressional spending legislation should not be subject to a veto. Well, guess what... it is. And if Congress has the will to override a spending bill veto, then it will have had the "final say" on the Budget.And you are the very sort of thought-free goon that the Dems have in mind when they try, lacking the guts or conviction of their own ideals, to throw veto-triggers into otherwise desirable (in their view) legislation, legislation that they fear might not pass. Typical Dem political philosophy - WHEN YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING, DO NOTHING & CLAIM EVERYTHING.

First, the GOP in the Senate are preventing action by Congress. That is not the fault of the Democrats but the GOP members who are preventing Congress from acting. When the President uses his Veto he is not setting the spending levels or terms but trying to prevent the will of Congress when legislation is passed that he does not agree with. If the majority of Congress has decided on a spending level they should continue to pass the same funding bills. If Bush and the GOP members of Congress continue to block action then SHUT the government down and place the blame where it belongs-- On the President and any who support him by sustaining his Veto. To cave into to Bush means the Congress is NOT meeting their responsibility. In the case of the Iraq War, the Democrats are moving in a direction that is in agreement with the majority on Americans and the GOP is trying to continue a policy most want changed!

that is their job.



that is his job



then they would be able to over turn his vetos.



the last numbers i heard last night was 10%. 10% of americans is not a majority.

the number before that was 65% in favor of staying in iraq as long as it wasn't for more than two years. 65% is a majority of americans.

so once again we see that you have lied.

So, once again we see that ColGene is too illiterate or full of hate for Bush to honor or respect the U.S. Constitution. That's ok Gene, the Constitution will go on working without your approval.

as for the troops running out of money. i would say it was everyones fault. except the troops.

Reply By: danielostPosted: Saturday, November 17, 2007First, the GOP in the Senate are preventing action by Congress. That is not the fault of the Democrats but the GOP members who are preventing Congress from acting.that is their job.

Preventing bills from coming to a vote is NOT the JOB of the GOP.

When the President uses his Veto he is not setting the spending levels or terms but trying to prevent the will of Congress when legislation is passed that he does not agree with.that is his job

No it is not. He is not the decided as to the budget!

If the majority of Congress has decided on a spending level they should continue to pass the same funding billsthen they would be able to over turn his vetos.

Only if they have a 2/3 majority. The Constitution DOES NOT require a 2/3 vote to pass spending!

In the case of the Iraq War, the Democrats are moving in a direction that is in agreement with the majority on Americans and the GOP is trying to continue a policy most want changed! the last numbers i heard last night was 10%. 10% of americans is not a majority.the number before that was 65% in favor of staying in iraq as long as it wasn't for more than two years. 65% is a majority of americans. so once again we see that you have lied.

70% of Americans want the Iraq War to end! What Planet do you live on?

Reply By: danielostPosted: Saturday, November 17, 2007as for the troops running out of money. i would say it was everyones fault. except the troops.

If Congress passes the funding and Bush veto's it, it will be Bushes fault and any member of Congress that does not vote to override his veto. If the GOP in the Senate prevents the bill from coming to a vote then it will be the GOP members in the Senate who will be at fault.

where were you when the dems wouldn't allow any votes on judges. this took place for 6 years.

When are you going to concede that a simple majority of Congress is not all that is needed to enact legislation? That the Constitution is responsible for the very thing you are bitching so loudly about? That your opinion does not constitute that of 50% of our population plus one? That doing "what the majority (50%+1) want" is by definition mob rule?

You're a pathetic conclusion-looking-for-justification hack. Fact of the matter is, people like you are the very reason we have the Constitution that we do, one that protects us from that "simple majority rules" fantasy. The Founders were smart enough to anticipate goofballs like you.

Reply By: danielostPosted: Saturday, November 17, 2007where were you when the dems wouldn't allow any votes on judges. this took place for 6 years.

This Blog is about stopping the Iraq war funding by the GOP in the Senate!

Reply By: DaiwaPosted: Saturday, November 17, 2007When are you going to concede that a simple majority of Congress is not all that is needed to enact legislation? That the Constitution is responsible for the very thing you are bitching so loudly about? That your opinion does not constitute that of 50% of our population plus one? That doing "what the majority (50%+1) want" is by definition mob rule?You're a pathetic conclusion-looking-for-justification hack. Fact of the matter is, people like you are the very reason we have the Constitution that we do, one that protects us from that "simple majority rules" fantasy. The Founders were smart enough to anticipate goofballs like you.

These are two separate issues. 70% of the public wants the Iraq war to END. It takes a simple majority to pass bills unless the Senate refuses to allow a vote. Cheney proved that when he broke a tie in a 50/50 vote on several occasions from 2001-2006!

Lets see what the voters think in November 2008 if vital functions are stopped because the GOP blocks the funding by preventing a vote in the Senate or by refusing to override a Bush Veto.

no this blog as all of your blogs is to attack bush.


now since you are a coward.

answer me this

why don't the democrats want to get out of Afghanistan

First, you have to prove that the 70% exists, which you can't because you are getting your claims from biased media polls.  Give it up gene.

And your point would be? That the Constitution worked?

For someone who professes to revere the Constitution as much as you do and who squeals so loudly when he perceives it has been violated in some way, I can't quite understand your bitching & moaning when it works as designed.

I admit, once again my ADD kicked in and I flipped through responses, so sorry if I state the obvious.

This is politics on both sides of the aisle, pure politics. Smart, too. Unfortunately, it's the men and women of our armed forces who are caught in the middle.

I photographed a group of veterans just a few weeks ago. I had to wonder, do I try to hide their missing arm and face, or do I show their injuries? What a horrible question. But that's what I wondered.

The press spends too much time hiding the missing faces, arms, legs. I decided to shoot the scene as it existed. Then, I went home and drank.

if i were a photographer this is what i would have done except the drinking part. please don't take that the wrong way, i don't drink.