Why Did Senate Republicans Oppose Troop Funding?

Dav said:

While I'm not accusing the Republicans of doing a good job in regard to health care, the Democrats voted for both of those wars, and I don't know what spending bills you refer to but I wouldn't be surprised if Democrats voted for those too.

Click to expand...

So I shouldn't support the Democrats now for trying to do a good job in health care because some voted for the wars and the no-contract bids? That doesn't justify me allowing the Republicans to continue doing a bad job with regards to health care along with continuing to provide no-contract bids and starting a war we had no need to start.

Dav said:

Whereas the Democratic politicians are selfless, and always think of their constituents?

Click to expand...

I am not so naive that I believe that the Democratic Party are without their faults. However, their efforts in trying to provide me with affordable health care exceed those of the Republican party.

Glinda said:

Of course politicians play politics. :doh This particular thread happens to highlight just how hard the right "plays."

Furthermore, I'm also pointing out a situation where our rightwing "OMG! OUR TROOPS ARE DYING WHILE OBAMA DITHERS!!" shouters have nothing to say about their own party's dithering.

Hello!? Where are all you shouters now?

Rev? Scarecrow? Arch Enemy? ptif219? Agent Ferris? donc? Zimmer? American? apdst? Crunch? DeeJayH? Gibberish? LaMidRighter? EpicDude86? (and so on)

You all know as well as I do, if this was the Dems voting against military funding to dick around with some other completely unrelated legislation, there'd be a ****storm of threads about it.

Click to expand...

Comon Glinda you really shouldn't have me in that mix. :2wave:

donc said:

Comon Glinda you really shouldn't have me in that mix. :2wave:

Click to expand...

That's what happens when you sit on the fence. You can't have it both ways buddy.

samsmart said:

So I shouldn't support the Democrats now for trying to do a good job in health care because some voted for the wars and the no-contract bids? That doesn't justify me allowing the Republicans to continue doing a bad job with regards to health care along with continuing to provide no-contract bids and starting a war we had no need to start.



I am not so naive that I believe that the Democratic Party are without their faults. However, their efforts in trying to provide me with affordable health care exceed those of the Republican party.

Click to expand...

What is a no-contract bid? Do you even have the slightest clue about govt contracting? I do, so be careful how you answer.

Well, the healthcare bill has passed - so that isn't really viable as a tactic, now.

What is still on the table is the possition of those supporting it, funding it, and leading it.

What i see is that they just aren't willing to support a liberal leading a war - a liberal leader who doesn't know the first thing about warfar, fighting tactics and who doesn't have experience in this area worth a ****.

I agree with them - but I have developed more personal views on the war and so on in recent years.

I think the real issue and ocmplaint should be that the only true control over war-efforts that Congress has is the power to cut funding and tighten up the purse strings.
That's it.

A war can go on without their support, without their input, without their sayso - the Constitution only gives them control over money. PERIOD.

So, when they use their only vice - I think it's ridiculous to hold it against them. It's the ONLY thing they can do.

And I think people are being stupid, foolish and obviously unaware of military-issues when they believe that this particular funding/underfunding issue will severely curtail military-success.

Money a win does not make in warfare - sure, it might help a bit - but I never consider this issue a question of faithfulness or concern for the troops.


Trying to make something out of this is pointless - both sides have changed their views and what they feel is important. The liberals were against the war in Iraq because it was lead by a Republican and now the flip flops have been put on - the liberals will support their liberal leader and the conservatives will not.

I generally trust Republicans to know what is needed wrt troop funding more than Dems, frankly. In the 20+ yrs my husband has been active duty he's been taken care of better by the "hawks" than by the "doves".
This should come as a shock to no one.

Let's do this, If anyone knows the number of this bill, please post it and we'll go to Thomas.gov and read it for ourselves. Sorry if I missed it but in the article I did not see the number or official name of the bill... :?

When journalists do a story about congressional votes, they should always cite the name of the bill.

OMG!! :doh

I resist the temptation to ask to to take off your special hat and instead ask: Did you even take a glance at the bill? How embarrassing for you! :3oops:

OVER HALF of the spending is socialist spending and outright pork! LESS than half is actually war funding.. typical socialist gamesmanship.. and YOU bought it!... :2rofll:

The premise of this thread is indicative of liberal ignorance of socialist policies! :2wave::2wave:

ConservaBill said:

OMG!! :doh

I resist the temptation to ask to to take off your special hat and instead ask: Did you even take a glance at the bill? How embarrassing for you! :3oops:

OVER HALF of the spending is socialist spending and outright pork! LESS than half is actually war funding.. typical socialist gamesmanship.. and YOU bought it!... :2rofll:

The premise of this thread is indicative of liberal ignorance of socialist policies!

Click to expand...

And of course you have read the bill, before posting your opinion on (socialist spending).:roll::roll:

ConservaBill, You better link me to that bill before I report you to Obama's disinformation Czar. :rofl

MrVicchio said:

However, this wasn't "Just a Troop Funding Bill" AND it was a stalling move to delay the Dem's disastrous Healthcare bill.

Click to expand...

When it comes to priorities a troop funding bill should outweigh all, especially during a time of war.

There is a no excuse.

Once again the GOP politicizes the military.

Glinda said:

Given how outraged the right was that President Obama "dithered" on his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, and that *gasp!* ONOES!! AMERICANS ARE DYING WHILE OBAMA DELAYS!!!, I can't wait to hear how conservatives/Republicans spin this load of hypocritical horse****.

Click to expand...

What's the rest of the story?

donc said:

And of course you have read the bill, before posting your opinion on (socialist spending).:roll::roll:

Click to expand...

Yep, or at least I've seen enough of it, read multiple summaries and seen the numbers... numbers do not reflect opinions, just facts..

Does putting "rofl" on your post mean you haven;t seen it and expect others don't look at the bills?

Or that you're simply trying to denigrate findings?

Or is that your "opinion I smell?

Oh I forgot ,,,,














....




....




:2rofll:

here's a link... so YOU can actually read before YOU comment!

United States House of Representatives, 111th Congress, 1st Session

The Department of Defense didn't ask for money to update the old officers club in San Francisco's Presidio into a visitors information center and exhibition space. Neither did any other member of Congress - except House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.


Her $5 million earmark request for the Presidio Heritage Center was approved by the Senate on Saturday as part of the $626 billion defense appropriations bill, the largest of the end-of-year government spending measures.

The bill, which includes $128 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, is expected to be signed by President Obama.

Pelosi's request was one of 1,720 earmarks - including several from Bay Area legislators - worth $4.2 billion in the measure.

That comes on the heels of Congress passing a $447 billion spending bill Dec. 13 that included 5,224 earmarks totaling $3.9 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group. The earmarks include $54 million for a flood-control project that will raise two trestles used by the Napa Valley Wine Train.

Click to expand...

Billions in earmarks inflate defense bill's cost

Yup, just the party of no...

No outrageous pork, No over spending in this economy, 1700 earmarks????

NO!

When are you dims going to wakeup and see what this congress is doing to this country? 2010 is going to be a slaughter.

donc said:

Comon Glinda you really shouldn't have me in that mix. :2wave:

Click to expand...

Sorry, my mistake. :3oops:

WASHINGTON (Map, News) -
Like their counterparts in the House, the Senate has larded its version of an “emergency” war spending bill with nearly $20 billion in pork-barrel outlays, including $100 million for the two major political parties’ 2008 presidential conventions.

The $121 billion bill includes $102 billion for the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as $14 billion for Hurricane Katrina aid and more than $4 billion for “emergency farm relief.”

“Congress will have to make the choice between booze and balloons or bullets and body armor,” John Hart, a spokesman for Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., told The Examiner on Monday. Coburn and a handful of other senators hope to shame their colleagues into stripping the pork out of the war spending bill.

The Senate bill is $18 billion more than President Bush requested for military operations. The House bill, which passed last week, exceeded the administration’s request by $21 billion and included money for spinach growers, peanut storage and citrus farmers.

Click to expand...

Senate war bill features $20B in pork - Examiner.com

$20,000,000,000 in pork. way to go Libs, that will show your fiscal responsibility in full living color!

this image pointed to this site(GOP.com )

on Apr-09-07.Now when you go that site you get this message.

<Your search - countdown to troop funding cuts - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

* Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
* Try different keywords.
* Try more general keywords.
* Try fewer keywords.>

Kinda makes you go Hhmmm....doesn't it? :rofl

donc said:

this image pointed to this site(GOP.com )

on Apr-09-07.Now when you go that site you get this message.

<Your search - countdown to troop funding cuts - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

* Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
* Try different keywords.
* Try more general keywords.
* Try fewer keywords.>

Kinda makes you go Hhmmm....doesn't it? :rofl

Click to expand...

When I hit that site it had a trojan on it. :shock:

RyrineaHaruno said:

When I hit that site it had a trojan on it. :shock:

Click to expand...

Not surprising, as its a link to GOP.COM,better check your wallet.:shock:

That being said, it didn't put anything on mine.

donc said:

Not surprising, as its a link to GOP.COM,better check your wallet.:shock:

That being said, it didn't put anything on mine.

Click to expand...

Thankfully, I have a good anti virus shied called Deluxe Shield.. Lulz about the check your wallet.

Here's a short list of reason's Republicans CORRECTLY opposed this TREASONOUS appropriations bill:

In all, Congress added in 1,720 pet projects, including:
∙$5 million for a visitors center in San Francisco
∙$23 million for indigent health care in Hawaii
∙$18 million for the Edward Kennedy Policy Institute in Massachusetts
∙$1.6 million to computerize hospital records in Oakland
∙$47 million for anti-drug training centers around the country
∙$20 million for the World War II Museum in Louisiana
∙$3.9 million grant to develop an energy-efficient solar film for buildings
∙$800,000 for minority prostate cancer research
∙$3.6 million for marijuana eradication in Kentucky
∙$2.4 million for handicap access and a sprinkler system at a community club in New York

ONLY a progressive would think this is even remotely acceptable..but of course BO will not sign it because ..well if he DID... THAT would make him a "Lyin' Sack of Dog Crap"...:rofl

samsmart said:

So I shouldn't support the Democrats now for trying to do a good job in health care because some voted for the wars and the no-contract bids? That doesn't justify me allowing the Republicans to continue doing a bad job with regards to health care along with continuing to provide no-contract bids and starting a war we had no need to start.



I am not so naive that I believe that the Democratic Party are without their faults. However, their efforts in trying to provide me with affordable health care exceed those of the Republican party.

Click to expand...

It's a NO-BID CONTRACT, for crying out loud!!!!

samsmart said:

However, their efforts in trying to provide me with affordable health care exceed those of the Republican party.

Click to expand...

You DO understand (Per COB) that your healthcare costs will go up ... RIGHT? :doh


ONLY Liberal mathematics allow anyone to believe that adding the burden 30 Million "FREE" insurance policies will NOT lower the costs to PRODUCTIVE Americans!

There's damn good reason the Republicans haven't got on board the socialist bandwagon... THE CONSTITUTION !!!

If you think the constitution is irrelevant then you probably DO believe in FREE healthcare... the Easter Bunny, and Peter Pan, etc.

COME ON libs there is no such thing as "free" and the Fed has NO MONEY, and they've already spent ours ... TWICE!

ConservaBill said:

Here's a short list of reason's Republicans CORRECTLY opposed this TREASONOUS appropriations bill:

In all, Congress added in 1,720 pet projects, including:
∙$5 million for a visitors center in San Francisco
∙$23 million for indigent health care in Hawaii
∙$18 million for the Edward Kennedy Policy Institute in Massachusetts
∙$1.6 million to computerize hospital records in Oakland
∙$47 million for anti-drug training centers around the country
∙$20 million for the World War II Museum in Louisiana
∙$3.9 million grant to develop an energy-efficient solar film for buildings
∙$800,000 for minority prostate cancer research
∙$3.6 million for marijuana eradication in Kentucky
∙$2.4 million for handicap access and a sprinkler system at a community club in New York

ONLY a progressive would think this is even remotely acceptable..but of course BO will not sign it because ..well if he DID... THAT would make him a "Lyin' Sack of Dog Crap"...:rofl

Click to expand...

That is the only one that would even remotely make sense, however it probably already exists or could be quickly developed by the private sector.