Text 42446, 196 rader
Skriven 2006-11-10 22:44:26 av Torbjorn Mohn (2:211/37)
  Kommentar till text 42382 av Ross Cassell (1:123/456)
Ärende: Insults
===============
Hi Ross!

I seem to remember someone (whasn't that you?) said recently that this wasn't
an echo for political debate? Or does that not apply to yourself?

I guess this is just another example of double standards? Or do you really mean
that discussing the American election has nothing to do with politics?


Take care.

Torbjorn

> Hello Janis!

> 09 Nov 06 09:32, you wrote to me:

>>> Reagan and slick willy got by with Congress in the hands of the
>>> opposition party, do you really see what happened as a magic light
>>> switch?

>> Many things will be changed in this country, and I expect to see many
>> investigations of this administration as well.  It's too bad that Bush
>> fired Rumsfeld.. I would have rather Rumsfeld was investigated for his
>> actions as well... I wouldn't doubt that is why Rumsfeld was removed.

> List the things that will be changed?

> Do remember that when the Repubs took Congress in a far more dramatic and
>convincing fashion in 1994, not too many of the changes they promised became a
> reality. Kicker is, they had a plan and a message, the democrats of 2006 do
> not.

>>> The bright spot here is Bush is gonna learn how to veto things..

>> Sure, he has that option... but if the Republican party wants to
>> survive this Bush won't be so quick to veto every measure.  Then
>> again, don't forget, supenas like those that crushed the end of
>> Clinton's term could well be applied to Bush.  Remember that period in
>> US History, when the Republicans did indeed state that "no one was
>> above the law".

> As I explained to someone else in another forum...

>A Bush VETO wont be damaging to the GOP under circumstances I predict would be
> the case.

> It takes a 2/3's majority vote in both chambers to override a presidential
> veto. The Democrats possess no such majority in either chamber.

> Lets look at the house, if a bill initially was passed on the strength of the
> dem majority, with a spattering of repub votes, lets say 175 repubs voted
> against it. We can assume similiarly narrow initial passage in the Senate.

> It will take 292 Votes in the House to override a Veto, Dems dont hold that
> many seats. 435 X .67

>It will take 67 votes in the Senate, DEMS dont hold that many seats. 100 X .67

>A bill passed on the virtue of the DEM majority with a small splattering of GO
> votes, that gets vetoed and sent back to the originating chamber, well to
> override would mean that those who initially voted against the bill the first
>time, would have to change their vote, so if 175 repubs initially rejected the
> bill the first time, do you thing 32 or more of them would change their vote
> contrary to their first vote to sustain a override?

> Not likely..

> This is the gridlock we will see, its more evident when there is a weak
> majority in the legislative body.

> Your assertion can only hold true if the legislation passes Congress on veto
>proof grounds, meaning it passed the house by 292 or more and the Senate by 67
> or more. In this case if a bill lands on Bushes desk that he objects to, but
>see's its literally bound to be passed anyway be a congressional veto override
> because of the initial votes the bill passed on, he would likely not sign it,
> and let the bill pass by default by not acting on it for 10 days. Of course
> there is the pocket veto, if such a bill gets to him, like at the end of a
>congressional session, he can not act on the bill and it would die naturally i
> there is no congress in session to act on the bill. (10 day rule applies)

>>> If legislation passed congress down party lines, the existing
>>> majority wont be able to override any such veto..

>> Possible.

> Not possible, very likely.

>>> Assuming the VA Senate seat goes left, do you think the Repubs wont
>>> pull the same obstructionist BS the Dems did, which stalled and
>>> stymied many things the past 6 years?

>> Perhaps.. but I think representatives in both houses now are VERY
>> aware of their constituents feelings about the state of this country,
>> civil rights and more.  I understand Nancy Pelosi, has a 100 hours
>> plan to bring things back in the swing of things and I also bet she'll
>> follow through with it.

> I doubt the house in the next 2 years will be making much of a splash, the
> Senate of the past 6 years has been quite a intestinal blockage and the DEM
> majority is way weaker, like by only 1.

> We will be seeing lotsa compromises coming through, no ramrodding and nothing
> radical.

> There is a reason why the left lost ground in 00,02,04, see if you can figure
> that out?

>>> That yours and Rons taxes will likely go up, sure!

>> I guess you'd rather see that deficit continue to grow until it nearly
>> bankrupts this nation? :)  Our taxes haven't gone down under Bush,
>> btw. They've gone up..

> The economy would not have rebounded the way it did if we had the left wing
> inspired tax structure.

>and yes, my taxes did go down, not by much, but no one has the right to tell m
> I dont need or need to appreciate the extra monies I see in my net take home.

> I'd rather have that money for myself, rather than see it go into the welfare
> system to fund irresponsible white trailer trash underage females become baby
> factories on the public dole.

> Remember the tax cuts were primarily income based cuts, that means people had
> more to invest into the economy as in investing into business or by merely
> being able to purchase more goods and services.. Tax revenue collected from
> businesses has increased. But you knew that.

> 9-11, the Airline bailout, Katrina werent for free events.

>and nearly all of the taxcuts you bemoan were enacted prior to all above!!! Bu
> you knew that.

> The number crunchers in academia said the recession began in March 2001,
>recessions dont happen overnight much less in 45 days. Bush was only in office
>for that long, yet the entire was all his fault to listen to you all. It wasnt
>his fault, it was his responsibility to try to fix and he did it. The DJI is a
> all time highs, unemployment is way down, even besting Clintonian numbers.

> I will concede that Bush should have vetoed a fair number of congressional
>spending bills, but with everything that has happened, we still would have had
> a deficit, even if he had been more veto concious.

>>>> Democrats, they are _progressive_ Democrats.  Read Chris Bowers
>>>> comments on mydd.com, or on dailykos.com.

>>> Progressive... C'mon Janis, thats just a word...
>>> The point is, you can use a million different descriptive words that
>>> denote if not describe the same thing.

>> No, the point is that those elected are not conservatives.  That is
>> what's important here.

> No a fair number are conservative..

> At least they ran as being conservative..

> Janis, the Carolinas are probably as conservative as one can get, yet in the
> congressional district that covers Asheville NC, a Democrat unseated the GOP
>incumbent, Heath Shuler.. He ran as a conservative, a evangelistic Christian t
> be exact.. He obviously isnt my congressman, (we re-elected our repub, his
> opponent was a wife beater) but I do live in the same TV market and I saw the
> commercials.

>If you see this election as a backlash from the Repubs trying to rule from the
>far right, just remember the lesson Clinton learned in 1994, I seriously doubt
> the new class of DEMS who unsearted incumbent repubs are of the far left like
> you want them to be.

> Since you are afraid GOD might die if we continue to split hairs over
> conservative versus progressive, lets settle for "moderate".

> You are living in a dream world if you think the DEMS will take too many
> chances by ruling from the left since they also represent areas with
> considerable repub/conservative populaces, unless of course your assertion is
> these people havent the same rights as leftos?

>>> Cool your jets, if you get a DEM in the WH in 2008, is the time to
>>> break out the champagne.

>> I think most democrats are now celebrating the potential that exists
>> to end the fear campaign in the US now.

>They can do that, all they have to do is prove that they are strong on fightin
> terrorism, can they do that Janis?

> ==
> Ross
> Fidonet Feeds Or Fidonet In Your Newsreader! http://www.easternstar.info
> Portal To My Personal Blogs And A Discussion Forum: http://www.cassell.us
> Email: rcassell[at]gmail[dot]com
> ... You do not strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Circle Of Protection (2:211/37)