House passes flag bill Bush opposed.
House passes flag bill Bush opposed.
“Governors could order federal facilities to lower their flags to honor fallen military troops under legislation passed by the House Tuesday.”
Rep. Bart Stupak, a Democrat whose northern Michigan district has lost close to 20 people in fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, said he sponsored the bill after unsuccessfully trying to persuade President Bush to issue an executive order on the issue.
The bill passed 408-4 and now goes to the Senate, where Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., have introduced parallel legislation.
The measure would amend federal law with regard to the flying of the national flag at half-staff to allow a governor to require that federal facilities in the state lower their flags when a member of the armed forces from that state dies while on active duty.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Good job, Rep Stupak.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:34 pmWhy does Bush disrespect the troops?
Could have something to do with guilt about his failure to live up to his committment in the f*(cking air guard.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:35 pmBut gosh no, that would require a conscience, remorse, stuff like that. Not the chymp. He’s pathetic. or is it apathetic, or both?
I can’t possibly imagine why King George would oppose such a bill.
OHHHH right, because it would show more public displeasure and agony over soldiers killed in his Crusade.
… but I would love to hear what his ‘official reasoning’ for his opposition was.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:36 pmWe should always honor our fallen, but Bushie won’t be happy about it, it will point out that people are dieing for OIL, and it will be a daily reminder.
The AWOL leader will just use that (full of ink) veto pen.
Hating the War Mongers Daily
May 16th, 2007 at 4:37 pmWOW!! Veto proof vote!!
May 16th, 2007 at 4:38 pmThe 2nd paragraph is duplicated…
May 16th, 2007 at 4:39 pmWho voted against this?
May 16th, 2007 at 4:39 pmWithin the next 24 hours, your representative will vote on:
* allowing the U.S. to build additional military bases in Iraq; and
* helping to prevent a war with Iran.
These votes will come as part of the debate on the defense authorization bill (H.R. 1585), which the House will complete action on in the next two days. The votes on these amendments could come at any time today or tomorrow (Wednesday or Thursday).
May 16th, 2007 at 4:40 pmNice spin. Bush didn’t oppose the bill. He just didn’t want to issue an executive order.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:41 pmIf we could convince the chymp to attend every funeral for each and every fallen soldier, maybe it’d keep him too busy to bomb Iran.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:41 pmApparently, this is the only flag many of Bush’s allies care about.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:42 pmWhy wouldn’t Bush want to honor the soldiers that have died in his noble and just war?
May 16th, 2007 at 4:43 pmOf course, Bush doesn’t want to be reminded of the harsh “reality” that he sent these individuals to their demise with cherry-picked intel and downright lies, does he? Our military was misled by this truth-twisting shape-shifter and they need to be recognized for their valor and level of trust they had in one at the top who betrayed them. These brave young men and women need to be celebrated - not ignored. If Bush would have his way, there would be no ceremonial recognition as well as the public viewing the flag-draped coffins of those whom we can really call “our heroes”. We certainly can’t look toward the white house any longer and view them as anything but liars and thieves, taking the taxpayers hard-earned money and doing absolutely nothing other than passing the buck and uttering “I can’t recall”…… what a bunch of wussies!
May 16th, 2007 at 4:43 pm—NO VOTES—
Campbell (CA)
Flake
Sessions
Shadegg
—- NOT VOTING 20 —
May 16th, 2007 at 4:43 pmBachus
Bartlett (MD)
Brady (PA)
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Engel
Fattah
Gutierrez
Hastert
Hunter
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Nadler
Paul
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Sali
Tancredo
Wasserman Schultz
“Nice spin. Bush didn’t oppose the bill. He just didn’t want to issue an executive order.
Comment by BottomBoy”
Okayyyyy….why wouldn’t he want to issue an executive order for this?
May 16th, 2007 at 4:45 pmProof positive that that the Bushies will do anything to keep people from thinking about the very human cost of this war. They are truly disgusting.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:46 pmThe legislature should pass a bill that requires the president to attend the funeral of each and every soldier killed in action. He should have to face the consequences of his idiotic war with firsthand knowledge of the families he has destroyed.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:46 pmBig deal. Not impressed. If they support the troops so much get them out of harm’s way!!
May 16th, 2007 at 4:48 pmI just returned from my brother’s funeral in Lafayette, Indiana, where all of the flags were at half-mast, not only for my brother, but for Spc. Cody Putnam, another local boy who was murdered over in Iraq.
I asked some of the merchants why they did this and they all said, “Because it’s the right thing to do.”
May 16th, 2007 at 4:50 pm#15: Because it doesn’t require one - as shown by this bill.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:51 pmHe just didn’t want to issue an executive order.
Comment by BottomBoy — May 16, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
Why?
May 16th, 2007 at 4:52 pmNOT VOTING
Sali
Comment by Thinking Person — May 16, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
Way to not take a stand, Sali. F*ckwit.
Oh, and thanks for keeping your mouth shut and your head down while you’re in Washington. We’re already embarrassed enough that you’re even there.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:52 pmBush’s philosophy - “out of sight - out of mind.”
May 16th, 2007 at 4:54 pmThe flags flying at half-staff will be a reminder to all of us that we are losing people every day in Bush’s misbegotten folly.
#17 - WSP3,
May 16th, 2007 at 4:54 pmTheir are not enough hours in the day for W to meet such a target and, most important - he would have to give up his August vacation.
Thank God, finally the fallen will receive the recognition they so deserve. As a former Marine, 86-92, I could never understand why they couldn’t be honored. Actually I could, because our commander in chief was such a coward I believe he’s jealous of those who actually had the guts to lay it on the line. I guess being a cheerleader says it all. Shrub is all for people getting their asses kicked (on the field or on the battle field) just as long as it isn’t his blue blooded Connecticut ass getting the kicking. CHEERLEADER- says it all, pussy. Hang Tough, Tap
May 16th, 2007 at 4:55 pmWonder how many were lost in that district in WWII or Korea, or Vietnam?
Probably more than 20.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:55 pm“Because it’s the right thing to do.â€
Comment by * Hater — May 16, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
That’s why the Chimp wouldn’t issue an executive order — he doesn’t know how to do the right thing.
I’m so sorry you lost your brother. You must be devastated.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:56 pmIt’s so little, but please accept my condolences to you and your family
The legislature should pass a bill that requires the president to attend the funeral of each and every soldier killed in action. He should have to face the consequences of his idiotic war with firsthand knowledge of the families he has destroyed.
Comment by WSP3 — May 16, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
He hasn’t attended ONE funeral of a soldier. Obviously he just doesn’t care.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:57 pmBush’s philosophy - “out of sight - out of mind.â€
The flags flying at half-staff will be a reminder to all of us that we are losing people every day in Bush’s misbegotten folly.
Comment by Marie
Folks, there is wisdom in these words. Marie hits a home run. Agreed 100%.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:58 pm*Hater- I am very sorry to hear of the loss of your brother, may he rest in peace, Hang Tough, Tap
May 16th, 2007 at 4:58 pmI’m so sorry you lost your brother. You must be devastated.
It’s so little, but please accept my condolences to you and your family
Comment by Zooey
Me too. God bless.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:58 pmI just returned from my brother’s funeral in Lafayette, Indiana, where all of the flags were at half-mast, not only for my brother, but for Spc. Cody Putnam, another local boy who was murdered over in Iraq.
I asked some of the merchants why they did this and they all said, “Because it’s the right thing to do.â€
Comment by * Hater
I’m very sorry for your loss.
We have the Oregon and US flags outside and for a long time they were occasionally to be seen at half-mast but with no apparent cause. At my personal request, the administrative offices now send out a global email to clarify this honor. Sadly, it invariably happens because of an Oregon soldier, Marine or guardsman who has been lost in Iraq. It happens far too often, but I cannot imagine the mindset of someone who doesn’t believe that this is right and proper and the very least that can be done to honor them.
Unless, of course, you have the mindset that people should not be reminded of the unfortunate “side effects” of war. So, no president showing up for funerals, no photographs of coffins returning from the front, and no federal requirement to lower the flags.
Disgusting.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:02 pmDuring the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward, as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, journalists and scholars and miscellaneous others came with their usual pleading inquiries: “What have we done to offend you? What can we do to put it right?” . . .
From the writings and the speeches of Osama bin Laden and his colleagues, it is clear that they expected this second task, dealing with America, would be comparatively simple and easy. This perception was certainly encouraged and so it seemed, confirmed by the American response to a whole series of attacks–on the World Trade Center in New York and on U.S. troops in Mogadishu in 1993, on the U.S. military office in Riyadh in 1995, on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000–all of which evoked only angry words, sometimes accompanied by the dispatch of expensive missiles to remote and uninhabited places.
Stage One of the jihad was to drive the infidels from the lands of Islam; Stage Two–to bring the war into the enemy camp, and the attacks of 9/11 were clearly intended to be the opening salvo of this stage. The response to 9/11, so completely out of accord with previous American practice, came as a shock, and it is noteworthy that there has been no successful attack on American soil since then. The U.S. actions in Afghanistan and in Iraq indicated that there had been a major change in the U.S., and that some revision of their assessment, and of the policies based on that assessment, was necessary.
More recent developments, and notably the public discourse inside the U.S., are persuading increasing numbers of Islamist radicals that their first assessment was correct after all, and that they need only to press a little harder to achieve final victory. It is not yet clear whether they are right or wrong in this view. If they are right, the consequences–both for Islam and for America–will be deep, wide and lasting.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:03 pmOf the four NO votes, two of the dumbf*cks were from Arizona, Flake and Shadegg.
Both Mormons BTW, something to keep in mind when you think of Romney.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:04 pmComment by * Hater — May 16, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
I am so sorry for the loss of your brother –
and for the loss of all those serving in the military.
I was pleased to see that local merchants recognize what is the right thing to do, as our leader hasn’t a clue.
I hate to blame upbringing on a person more than 60 years old, because a frequent rhetorical question of mine is “when do mothers ever get off the hook for mistakes their children make?” — but in the case of the Bush family, we all know that Babs’ skills as a mother left a lot to be desired, as evidenced in each of her ignorant children.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:06 pmMore fking plagiarism from the troll: http://tinyurl.com/2q8suu
If you’re going to spout propaganda, troll, at least give credit to the actual author. Goddamn, but you’re a despicable piece of work.
And trust me, it will be a cold day in hell before I accept the mouthings of the Wall Street Journal editorial page as anything but total crap. Almost 100% wrong time and time again.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:06 pm#33 — Patrick, you have to give credit to the person who wrote that cut & paste work, or it’s plagarism. You’ve been told before, but I understand you’re a halfwit.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:06 pmwho have you copied and pasted, Patrickone?
May 16th, 2007 at 5:09 pmIt would be nice of you to quote who you post…
Dems are big on symbolic gestures regarding the troops.
They just draw the line at providing them with the funding they need to win the war.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:10 pmPatrick, why would you sully this thread with your paranoid rantings (not even your own words, tsk tsk). I know it’s difficult to acknowledge our fallen brothers and sisters, but why not let alone those who wish to do so? My goodness, you are even against showing respect and recognition by lowering flags on federal buildings.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:10 pmZooey, but, but… unless someone tells them what to say or write or think, they have nothing.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:11 pm#39, I think you wrote in error. It was Bush who vetoed the Iraq funding bill, wasn’t it? Do you have any idea why he wouldn’t want to fund our troops?
May 16th, 2007 at 5:14 pmSo Dems, now that you’ve taken the Senate, what are you gonna do next?
Dems: “Well, gee… golly… I… well… I suppose we’ll see if we can lower some flags.”
May 16th, 2007 at 5:15 pmoh man, I hope he vetoes that… what a d!ck
May 16th, 2007 at 5:17 pmDems are big on symbolic gestures regarding the troops.
They just draw the line at providing them with the funding they need to win the war.
Comment by Cynicon Implant — May 16, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
I’m giving you a symbolic gesture.
Why do Bushites want to give Bush a blank check to wage an occupation in a county that is undergoing a civil war? Ignorance I guess.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:18 pmI smell a signing statement coming.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:35 pm“#15: Because it doesn’t require one - as shown by this bill.
Comment by BottomBoy”
This is an example of circular reasoning.
They created the bill because he wouldn’t issue an executive order; now you’re arguing: “See, he didn’t need to issue an executive order because they created a bill.”
Which still begs the question: why didn’t he just issue an executive order and save the process time?
And a likely answer is: anything that forces this congress to consume time in procedural wrangling is good for the administration’s desire to run out the clock until Nov 2008 as much as possible. The more effort this congress is forced to expend in procedural detail, the less effort they have to expend on oversight.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:36 pmWhere did it say Bush opposed it? Neither link seems to mention any White House opposition.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:37 pm#39
“Dems are big on symbolic gestures regarding the troops.
They just draw the line at providing them with the funding they need to win the war.
Comment by Cynicon Implant”
Actually the democratic congress provided them all the money they needed, and more–and provided funding for Katrina victims etc.
It was the president that vetoed the bill and refused to fund the troops.
What’s the difficulty in understanding this?
May 16th, 2007 at 5:40 pmI smell a signing statement coming.
Comment by pete592
Nah, he’ll sign that one into law, and then take credit for the idea.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:49 pmComment by Cynicon Implant — May 16, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
Sorry — the Dems gave Bush all the funds necessary for the troops and then some — it was Bush, the decider, who, in his role as commander guy, vetoed the measure.
So don’t go blaming democrats for not funding the troops — it was Bush’s decision.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:01 pmThey just draw the line at providing them with the funding they need to win the war.
The Dems gave Bush ALL the money he WANTED.
Bush VETOED it because it contained TIMELINES to withdrawal.
Also, don’t try the “pork” bullzhit.
Bush’s ORIGINAL request earmarked OVER HALF of the money for items NOT related to Iraq or Afghanistan.
TRY AGAIN, loser…
May 16th, 2007 at 6:04 pmI think we should both lower the flag, and fly it upside down until the Dem’s win office in 2008.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:26 pmThe legislature should pass a bill that requires the president to attend the funeral of each and every soldier killed in action. He should have to face the consequences of his idiotic war with firsthand knowledge of the families he has destroyed.
How would FDR or Johnson manage a war if they’re running around attending funerals?
May 16th, 2007 at 6:33 pmFlags should remain at half mast until this administration is removed from office.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:34 pmWhich still begs the question: why didn’t he just issue an executive order and save the process time?
Well, lefties have frequently whined whenever he’s used executive orders. Guess he wanted to avoid the fallout.
And a likely answer is: anything that forces this congress to consume time in procedural wrangling is good for the administration’s desire to run out the clock until Nov 2008 as much as possible. The more effort this congress is forced to expend in procedural detail, the less effort they have to expend on oversight.
Congress is plenty capable of wasting time debating obvious veto bait and useless crap like the minimum wage. They don’t need the President’s help.
Plus, the new Democrats have to form a working relationship with the lobbyists.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:36 pm#
How would FDR or Johnson manage a war if they’re running around attending funerals?
Comment by m12 — May 16, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
#
Well, now that he has a War Czar to manage the war for him …
To be fair, few other presidents attended the funerals of soldiers. But he sure does find lots of time for vacation.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:40 pmPlus, the new Democrats have to form a working relationship with the lobbyists.
Comment by m12 — May 16, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
I’m sure Tom Delay can give them a few pointers.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:42 pmSo much for having respect for the fallen and following tradition; Now we have to pass a law that allows for the ordering of having respect for the fallen and following tradition. WTF?
May 16th, 2007 at 6:44 pm#55
“Well, lefties have frequently whined whenever he’s used executive orders. Guess he wanted to avoid the fallout.”
No, democrats have complained over signing statements. In this case democrats specifically *asked* for an executive order; that’s the whole point of the question…
“Congress is plenty capable of wasting time debating obvious veto bait and useless crap like the minimum wage. They don’t need the President’s help.”
Actually, this congress has been very expeditious in their first four months in getting bills to the president’s desk and passing legislation that the American people have been wanting–witness the iraq funding bill that the president wouldn’t sign, thereby denying important funding to troops in the field.
“Plus, the new Democrats have to form a working relationship with the lobbyists.”
Yes, with tom delay getting fitted for horizontal stripes, they’ll have no one to teach them the ropes.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:52 pm“How would FDR or Johnson manage a war if they’re running around attending funerals?
Comment by m12″
How would bush manage a war if he’s always on vacation or clearing brush?
Oh, I guess the answer to that would be….pretty much the way he manages it now.
That is, so well that he feels he needs to hire a “war czar” to do the job for him. I guess so he’ll feel better while he’s clearing brush or riding his mountain bike.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:55 pmAnybody watching to the Repulsivescum kissy-fest last night KNOWS…
…the ONLY flag that matters to Bush and his TREASONOUS, right wing inbred, CONNED’selfesrving, RACIST, Replsivescum cuntfederate cuntstinktuents…
…is the cuntfederate flag…
May 16th, 2007 at 7:22 pmNo, democrats have complained over signing statements. In this case democrats specifically *asked* for an executive order; that’s the whole point of the question…
Actually, they whined when he issued an executive order on Presidential papers. Even if they asked for it, that doesn’t mean a whole lot. Democrats voted in favor of Patriot Acts I and II and yet whined about those anyway.
Actually, this congress has been very expeditious in their first four months in getting bills to the president’s desk and passing legislation that the American people have been wanting–witness the iraq funding bill that the president wouldn’t sign, thereby denying important funding to troops in the field.
Yeah, where’s that minimum wage hike anyway?
Yes, with tom delay getting fitted for horizontal stripes, they’ll have no one to teach them the ropes.
Tom Delay has not been convicted of a crime. Pelosi, on the other hand, wanted to put an impeached judge in charge of House Intelligence!
May 16th, 2007 at 7:36 pmPelosi, on the other hand, wanted to put an impeached judge in charge of House Intelligence!
Comment by m12
…of course you NEGLECTED to mention…
…an “impeached” (by all RACIST, al Ceeracker conned’selfservative Congresscum)…
…THEN…
…ACQUITTED (of ALL charges)…
…in a U.S. court of law…
…m12…
…why don’t you…
…eat an m-16 round?
May 16th, 2007 at 7:45 pmSo the Soviets won the Cold War with their tough tactics, Patrick? Funny, that’s not how I remember it. But you think we should emulate them?
May 16th, 2007 at 7:50 pm“Actually, they whined when he issued an executive order on Presidential papers.”
There’s plenty to whine about when it comes to the actions and crimes of this president.
“Even if they asked for it, that doesn’t mean a whole lot. Democrats voted in favor of Patriot Acts I and II and yet whined about those anyway.”
This comment doesn’t seem to have a point. The point of the original question was: Why didn’t he issue an executive order when it was requested? And this hasn’t been answered.
“Yeah, where’s that minimum wage hike anyway?”
It’s coming, overwhelmingly approved by congress. Where have you been?
“Tom Delay has not been convicted of a crime. Pelosi, on the other hand, wanted to put an impeached judge in charge of House Intelligence!”
Another non-sequitur; delay is getting fitted for his stripes, but I’ll agree he hasn’t had them issued yet.
BTW, Pelosi did *not* put forth Alcee Hastings name for the position of head of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
On the other hand:
–hastert, boehner and other republic party leaders kept pedophile mark foley around even after they knew he was a danger to congressional pages.
–Jack Abramoff found fertile ground among members of the republic party for influence peddling, with the following individuals pleading guilty: J. Steven Griles, Adam Kidan, Bob Ney, Tony Rudy, Michael Scanlon, Roger Stillwell, William Heaton, Neil Volz, Mark Zachares;
and David Safavian getting convicted;
and many other republic party candidates losing their bids for reelection based on their direct association wiht the scandal.
May 16th, 2007 at 8:08 pm#63
Hmm? No, Alcee Hastings was impeached on a 413-3 vote. Pelosi, Conyers, and Steny Hoyer all voted to toss him out! The Democrats controlled the House in 1988.
May 16th, 2007 at 8:11 pmThere’s plenty to whine about when it comes to the actions and crimes of this president.
If you say so. Included in that ‘plenty’ is the Dimocrats whining about Executive Orders. So, he decided not to do it.
It’s not Bart Stupak’s place to tell the President what to do and what not to do.
It’s coming, overwhelmingly approved by congress. Where have you been?
Coming, eh? It’s been nearly 5 months and they still can’t get it done, with control of both houses of Congress! I guess they’re taking their time.
May 16th, 2007 at 8:16 pmAlcee Hastings was impeached on a 413-3 vote. Pelosi, Conyers, and Steny Hoyer all voted to toss him out! The Democrats controlled the House in 1988.
Comment by m12 #66
…and?
…what about that ACQUITTAL thing?
…and the m-16 round…
…it really would clear your head…
May 16th, 2007 at 8:25 pm“It’s not Bart Stupak’s place to tell the President what to do and what not to do.”
Absolutely true. But clearly, with such huge bipartisan support for the *bill*, there seems to be widespread support even in his party for the issue, so why not take the high road and get some positive press for himself and members of the republic party (when, lord knows, they need it)?
But if you’re saying he just chose not to sign it because he didn’t feel like it–I can certainly see why that might very well be true; after all, we know how he acts when anyone tries to tell him do anything. He is The Decider, after all.
“Coming, eh? It’s been nearly 5 months and they still can’t get it done, with control of both houses of Congress! I guess they’re taking their time.
Comment by m12″
When it comes to priorities, I’ll let them focus on getting funding for the troops in iraq, and doing what they need to do to follow the will of the American people in spite of the president.
If control of both houses of congress is the standard they’re being judged against, it certainly doesn’t say much for the last session of (republic party controlled) congress, which accomplished less than Truman’s “do-nothings”, lost the majority of both houses, and managed to have many of their members indicted and/or sent to prison.
May 16th, 2007 at 8:32 pmIf control of both houses of congress is the standard they’re being judged against, it certainly doesn’t say much for the last session of (republic party controlled) congress, which accomplished less than Truman’s “do-nothingsâ€, lost the majority of both houses, and managed to have many of their members indicted and/or sent to prison.
Actually, they did a fair amount. They confirmed 2 Supreme Court judges, reaffirmed the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, and reformed Bankruptcy abuse. You might not like or agree with it, but its false to say they did “nothing”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ 109th_United_States_Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ 110th_United_States_Congress
Funny thing. The 110th list is packed with “pending or failed”!
May 16th, 2007 at 9:06 pm…and?
…what about that ACQUITTAL thing?
…and the m-16 round…
…it really would clear your head…
You suggested that RACIST, al Ceeracker conned’selfservative Congresscum were responsible for the impeachment. So I guess you are implying Pelosi, Conyers, and Hoyer are all RACIST, al Ceeracker conned’selfservative Congresscum?
He was acquitted in criminal court, yeah. However, that has no relevance to impeachment proceedings in Congress. You know that separation of powers thing.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-740.ZS.html
May 16th, 2007 at 9:09 pmComment by m12 #71
I’m not suggesting ANYTHING…
…I’m saying that Hasting’s ouster on bribery and corruption charges…
…was spearheaded and shoved down the throats of Congresspersons like Pelosi and Conyers…
…by right wing RACIST al Ceeracker conservative Repulsivescum and their political machine…
…which threatened the Democrats with use of a dissenting vote against them come re-election time…
…and Pelosi, Conyers and others went along because they KNOW how RACIST (and STUPID) the voting public is (generally speaking)…
…how else do you explain 8 YEARS of a fu*king CRIMINAL moron?
…and I beg to differ on the ACQUITTAL thing, it means that the Black judge was set up by the al Ceerackers…
…now…
…what about that m-16 thing…
…it could do YOU a lot of good…
May 16th, 2007 at 9:20 pmWhy should people killed while performing crimes against humanity
be honored with the American flag flying at half mask?
Is not participating in an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation, a crime against humanity, like it was back when Hitler attacked Poland for control of its oil?
Oh yeah I forgot, HYPOCRITES are alright with murderers when it is their family and friends doing the murdering!
By the same token, Iraq should fly its flag at half mast whenever an Iraqi fighting an America troop dies, right?
May 16th, 2007 at 9:28 pmWill the Commander Guy veto the Flag Bill?
May 16th, 2007 at 9:34 pm“Actually, they did a fair amount. They confirmed 2 Supreme Court judges, reaffirmed the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, and reformed Bankruptcy abuse. You might not like or agree with it, but its false to say they did ‘nothing’.
Funny thing. The 110th list is packed with “pending or failedâ€!
Comment by m12″
You can’t seriously be trying to compare the results of the *completed* 109th session to the 110th session that’s not even out of it’s fourth month.
That’s simply intellectually dishonest.
I didn’t say they did nothing, merely pointed out that they compared unfavorably to the famously unaccomplished 80th Congress under Truman.
In 2006, the second session of the 109th Congress set the all-time record for fewest days worked by a U.S. Congress: ninety-three. This compares to 162 days a year in the ’60s and ’70s, and 139 days a year in the ’80s and ’90s.
The 109th Congress beat the record set by the “Do-Nothing” 80th Congress (which met for a combined 252 days between the House and the Senate) by meeting for a total of 218 days, just over half a year, between the House and the Senate combined.
The point being: they were extremely lazy.
The “accomplishments” you cite aren’t necessarily anything to be too proud of (e.g. the Torture bill?). You forgot to include the wonderful Theresa Marie Schiavo law in your list.
You also don’t mention that the 109th abdicated its oversight responsibilities, fostered government intrusion into the home life of private citizens, eliminated habeus corpus, and helped spend the government into a $300 billion dollar hole–while lining their own pockets through influence peddling.
The point being: their “accomplishments” have been nothing to write home about.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:38 pm#72
And in corner 1 we have a professional apologist….tell me, who controlled the House of Representatives in 1988?
Oh right, it was the minority GOP’s fault for somehow ’shoving it down their throats’.
I like your thinking though.
Hastings, who was impeached, convicted (and could have been barred from seeking public office had the Senate done so), and acquiited was set up and is completely innocent.
Bush, who has not been impeached and not been charged with a single thing, is a guilty CRIMINAL moron.
You beg to differ? Funny, a UNANIMOUS Supreme Court felt differently.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:40 pmComment by m12 #76
…stop lying you racist biii*ch…
“This is the only instance in American history where a Federal official was first tried by a criminal court and, after being acquitted, was then impeached by the U.S. Congress for the same crime.”
http://law.jrank.org/ pages/ 3376/ Alcee-Hastings-Trial-Impeachment-1983-1989.html
…as fory our criminal, mass murdering, war profiteering, TREASONOUS god…
…BUSH…
…stay tuned…
…it ain’t over ’til it’s over…
May 16th, 2007 at 9:54 pmGood job, Rep Stupak.
Comment by Zooey — May 16, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
Well let’s not be too hasty. Does his bill protect the half-lowered flags from being burned ?
If not it’s only a half-empty gesture of pointless symbolism which helps nobody.
What a difference control of congress makes eh ?
May 17th, 2007 at 8:06 amGHW Bush served in the military in WWII, as did his father Prescott Bush–later a Nazi sympathizer and collaborator–in WWI. What have any Bushies done since to protect our American way of life?
It is interesting to note that Prescott’s father was already in the war-profiteering business.
“In the spring of 1918, Bush became chief of the Ordnance, Small Arms, and Ammunition Section of the War Industries Board of Bernard Baruch - a close associate of E.H. Harriman and Clarence Dillon - with national responsibility for government assistance to and relations with weapons companies including Remington (which was at the time controlled by Percy Rockefeller who, along with Averill Harriman, was involved in arranging for Harriman’s and Bush’s sons Bunny Harriman and Prescott Bush to be admitted to Yale University’s Skull and Bones in 1916.) Remington dominance of ammunition and small arms contracts during World War I continued during Bush’s government service and many years beyond.”
http://www.answers.com/topic/samuel-p-bush
Sort of the Halliburton of the day.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:11 amAh bowellmovent1-2 sounds like Patrick1 with the “google”. Ok smart guy, I’ll see your aquitted Alcee, and raise you a confessed +convicted abramhoff (whose visits the white house refuses to catalog), Ney, libby, 2 tom delay aides (delay will be following soon, but I love hearing you law and order types selectively scream about “innocent until proven guilty”)
also Eliot Abrams pleaeded guilty to lying to congress and is now very much one of the puppetmasters of this administration….
and let not forget the pedophile foley.
BM12 , would you like to do a comprehensive comparison of the criminal acts of our side vs your side regarding those in power since 2000 ?
and how about military records, want to compare those also? care to tell us some of the highlights of your side? McCain…. anyone else on your side (that doesn’t strongly disagree with the current leadership?,, ie I hope your not relying on Hagel or Powell to show us how tough you side is)
May 17th, 2007 at 5:30 pm>If not it’s only a half-empty gesture of pointless symbolism which helps >nobody.
ok let me get this straight….flying the flag at half mast is “gesture of pointless symbolism” but trying to restrict what people do to thier own personal property is somethign that helps somebody? who exactly is being “helped” by a law prohibiting flag burning? (If I were cynical, I’d say the only people it helps are politicans deparate for a wedge issue because they have no substantive legislation to pursue) let me guess….the bill would “help” the people who might get thier poor feelings hurt at seeing one of the oh so common flag burnings that go on in this country today. But you don’t mind if women walk around in american flag panties with the stars and stripes wedged between two @sscheeks, right? Or should we ban that, too? How far should we go to “help” people not be offended by the acts of others? Part of what makes this country great is the right to disrepect it as long as you dont do so violently.
oh, and you want to talk about “gestures of pointless sybolism”, how about YOUR congress issuing a subpeana for a brain dead women to come “testify” in front of congress purely to make a spectacle? that wouldnt qualify as a “gesture of pointless sybolism” in your mind, woudl it?
May 17th, 2007 at 5:43 pmThe same number of people who are helped by a flag lowering bill.
The things that need fkn explaining here.
Wedge issue ? This is bipartisan wankery
The bill passed 408-4
Apparently it depends on whether Bush opposed it or not.
No, that was your congress not mine.
May 17th, 2007 at 7:29 pmLowered or not, my flag doesn’t have red and white stripes.
I think that we should investigate George Bush’s military career until we are certain that all of the facts are out. Dan Rather lost his job over this issue, and much of the News Media stopped working on this story. We need someone with the guts to ride this story out to its conclusion. Then we will really know the moral authority of George Bush.
Bob
May 20th, 2007 at 10:29 am