The lulz that is congress.

[guartz]

Today's congress is so useless it's actually funny. Not funny as in, "oh shit, the republic is so fucked" but funny as in watching them try to do something and the president saying "No."
Fuck the separations of power, we got the decider in office!

There hasn't been a more useless congress since the days of old Rome, right when Julius crossed the Rubicon.

The most recent lulz coming from congress is that whole investigation into potential wrong-doings of the executive office. When John Conyers issued a congressional subpoena to Miers and Bolton to come before congress and swear under oath, they just simply didn't come, and when Wexler asked Attorney General Mukasey if he would enforce contempt of congress citation, he said "no."

All they can pretty much do is sit there and think of laws the president will agree with.

[Kiro]

Good thing the president is DEAD.

THE ONE IN OFFICE RIGHT NOW IS JUST A CLONE CONTROLLED BY THE POPE!

[guartz]

Good thing the president is DEAD.

THE ONE IN OFFICE RIGHT NOW IS JUST A CLONE CONTROLLED BY THE POPE!

No! Ugh, how many times do I have to explain this to you?! It's the BLACK POPE WHO CONTROLS THE WORLD AND STEALS YOUR SOCKS FROM THE PUBLIC LAUNDRY MACHINES.

geez, get it right!

[Kuya]

I wanted to reply to this thread in a serious manner, but i don't know what to say, as there seems to be nothing to discuss.

[Charla]

In before lolGuartz.

[guartz]

I wanted to reply to this thread in a serious manner, but i don't know what to say, as there seems to be nothing to discuss.

I was a bit hesitant to make the thread because it's such an obvious thing, however I felt like I needed to say it. All I expected was for people to get a little chuckle out of it, you know, the "holy shit this sucks" kinda chuckle.

[Kuya]

I guess. Nothing new, but it is funny. Especially if you're into the silly things republicans/Bush does.

[guartz]

I guess. Nothing new, but it is funny. Especially if you're into the silly things republicans/Bush does.

Speaking of that, I was watching Conservative Political Action Conference on C-SPAN, and after bolton spoke his nonsense, there were a lot of republican/conservative "think tanks" who took turns talking about key issues, and what I got of it, was essentially a confirmation that neoconservatism failed and put America in danger, and they all called for return to classic conservatism, you know, something akin to Ron Paul. Although his name wasn't mentioned.


I mean, they even question the need for troops in germany/japan/south korea.

It was really funny.

[Olo401]

Today's congress is so useless it's actually funny. Not funny as in, "oh shit, the republic is so fucked" but funny as in watching them try to do something and the president saying "No."
Fuck the separations of power, we got the decider in office!

It goes well beyond that. The Democratic leadership stonewalls every attempt to even bring up hearings in regards to impeachment or even censure. I can understand the thinking behind being cordial to these cocksuckers - it's the high road, it makes you look more mature, etc..

The problem is we didn't put the Democrats back into power in Congress to play nice with Bush. We put them there to get rid of him and end the war. They have refused to do the first thing, and therefore they have failed any attempt to do the second.

If they had at least tried once to bring up an impeachment inquiry, their approval ratings would probably be much higher. Not glowing, but modestly in the 40s. They're in the toilet because their own constituents are pissed off.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I think if a majority of Americans wanted us out of Iraq, we would have been out of there by now. Look what happened when people didn't want the amnesty bill passed.

[aurik]

(This is from 2006, and people are even more war-weary now)
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08 ... index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Opposition among Americans to the war in Iraq has reached a new high, with only about a third of respondents saying they favor it, according to a poll released Monday.

Just 35 percent of 1,033 adults polled say they favor the war in Iraq; 61 percent say they oppose it -- the highest opposition noted in any CNN poll since the conflict began more than three years ago.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

(This is from 2006, and people are even more war-weary now)
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08 ... index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Opposition among Americans to the war in Iraq has reached a new high, with only about a third of respondents saying they favor it, according to a poll released Monday.

Just 35 percent of 1,033 adults polled say they favor the war in Iraq; 61 percent say they oppose it -- the highest opposition noted in any CNN poll since the conflict began more than three years ago.

What did the poll mean by favor the war? Myself for example, I don't think we should of gone to war with Iraq, but I don't think believing we shouldn't have gone equates to we shouldn't be there now. I would say I'm not in favor of the war, but that I'm not in favor of surrendering.

[Shuemue]

Admitting a mistake and getting the fuck out of a country that's been invaded illegally isn't surrendering.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Capitulate then.

Edit: It just depends if you think it's good or a bad thing. Someone who thinks getting out is a good thing will choose a word without a negative canotation.

[Charla]

Well I think if a majority of Americans wanted us out of Iraq, we would have elected people who could make it happen. Oh wait-

Public opinion on that immigration reform (lolamnesty) was pretty divided. It wasn't anything like the overwhelming opposition to the war that I remember from early 2007. But then again, I'm over here and you're over there. I'm sure there are some parts of the country where the word amnesty is more than a meaningless epithet, and everyone was willing to fight for a hundred years rather than cut and run.

On the other hand, I think that an attempt at impeachment would have just been a giant shitstorm, and without criminal charges to work with, the Democrats would have just ended up painted as opportunistic jackasses.

edit: fast posting
I wouldn't say people are "more war-weary", mostly because the surge slowed down the bad news. The poll most likely just said "oppose the war" and "support the war", making it meaningless for the details you're talking about. Even so, I think if the question had been "should we leave now?", it would have got similar numbers. It wouldn't now, because now people can see a way it might sort of work out.

edit 2: how about "pass the buck?"

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

edit 2: how about "pass the buck?"

I think you put that in after I edited. I think it just depends on whether someone is for or against withdrawal and will chose a word without a negative conotation if they are for withdrawal.

[aurik]

(This is from 2006, and people are even more war-weary now)
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08 ... index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Opposition among Americans to the war in Iraq has reached a new high, with only about a third of respondents saying they favor it, according to a poll released Monday.

Just 35 percent of 1,033 adults polled say they favor the war in Iraq; 61 percent say they oppose it -- the highest opposition noted in any CNN poll since the conflict began more than three years ago.

What did the poll mean by favor the war? Myself for example, I don't think we should of gone to war with Iraq, but I don't think believing we shouldn't have gone equates to we shouldn't be there now. I would say I'm not in favor of the war, but that I'm not in favor of surrendering.

The exact text of the question is linked from the article I cited. However I'm sure if they asked the question using loaded spin-words such as "surrender" or "capitulate" they'd get much different results.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007 ... r-4-years/

Fifty-two percent want the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, while 43 percent said there should not be a timetable.


Here's another link you might enjoy: it deals with both the iraq war AND tax cuts!
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/23073316/

[sunb1ind]

(This is from 2006, and people are even more war-weary now)
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08 ... index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Opposition among Americans to the war in Iraq has reached a new high, with only about a third of respondents saying they favor it, according to a poll released Monday.

Just 35 percent of 1,033 adults polled say they favor the war in Iraq; 61 percent say they oppose it -- the highest opposition noted in any CNN poll since the conflict began more than three years ago.

This is an example of how IMHO big media can manipulate statistics to make things look like only "a little" displeasure in the US. A sample of only 1,033 adults(no other information given) is not nearly large enough to show how much people truely disagree with the war. Sept of 07 isn't really that long ago, I'd say the trend of mainstream awareness with the war started around after Hussien's execution.

The only way to end this war is to elect someone who doesn't plan on continuing in Iran and someone who has a plan to get our troops out. Shameless plug, but good example: http://www.gravel2008.us/?q=node/1191

An interesting read listing seemingly obvious steps to withdraw from Iraq and still "win" the war.

Edit: Took too long to post, realized I'm preaching to the choir, I apologize

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

So it seems kind of mixed. And that last article you posted, I glanced over it because of class in five minutes, but I think it's irrelevant because the people said they wanted out to stimulate the economy, not for right or wrong. Right?

[Charla]

I actually did not put it in after that edit. Passing the buck can have either a negative or positive connotation depending on who you ask, and more importantly it focuses attention on the fact that there would still be a conflict afterwards, and it would be someone else's problem, which can also be either good or bad depending on who you ask. The only disadvantage is that it takes some more thought to make sense of.

edit: What would you consider a "relevant" reason for advocating a given course of action? (leaving aside the obvious fact that the respondants probably gave all sorts of reasons for their responses). Peace? Freedom? Human rights? Democracy? Victory?