Goddam DINO traitor enabler Democrats!!!111

[WilliamPitt]

How dare they not have 60 Senators to defend the Webb amendment!!111

I'm going Green!!! Impeach Reid!!!111

Blarg!

:grr: :crazy: :grr:

...and if you think it's OK for Dems to not have that 60 on this vote, why is it bad for them not to have it on all the others...?

:think:

[William769]

1. My math must be off.

:shrug:

[WilliamPitt]

2. Because...?

51 doesn't get there.

[William769]

3. I was agreeing with you and being sarcastic.

I guess I wasn't very good at it. Sorry.

[WilliamPitt]

8. Goddam lack of sarcastic clarity arglebloo gaaargh!!!

:)

[youthere]

20. Well Put!

[Occulus]

25. Gosh, Will, what was in your lunch?

'Twas brillig, was it? Made you gyre and gimble?

:P

[WilliamPitt]

29. Bile.

[Occulus]

31. eew n/t

[WilliamPitt]

32. Tell me about it.

[myrna minx]

90. Did you have lunch with Spewy?

:rofl:

[King Coal]

35. Are you drunk man? Drinking an posting don't mix.

Use club soda instead, its a better mixer.:toast:

[William769]

39. Yea but Wild Turkey makes me feel better!

:)

[Occulus]

59. Try some of this

Just make sure there's no open flame nearby.

[William769]

79. Being raised in Kentcky...

[Raven]

5. How did Judd Gregg vote? I heard Sununu voted "yes" so I

guess he's getting the message.

[coco77]

4. I am sick of this shit ...

That is why I have been seriously thinking of voting for anybody but the Dems and never the CONS.

[WilliamPitt]

10. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh.

God.

Thank you.

[sharp_stick]

13. That wasn't even close n/t

[blondeatlast]

41. You forgot the j/k. nt

[EstimatedProphet]

81. Hey, that'll fix everything!

[sharp_stick]

6. LOL

And yet still people think they can trust the pukes to support them on other issues. Never trust a Republican, and I mean never.

[Squatch]

7. It'll be more of the same for the next 1.5 years.

[WilliamPitt]

11. Yes we will

So what to do?

(pressure Republicans to cross the line)

[blondeatlast]

22. WHAT DID YOU SAY? Excuse me--what have the RRRepublicans got to do with anything???

Gawddamn enabler. Geez.

[WilliamPitt]

24. 51 + 9 = 60.

51 + 16 = 67.

:think:

;)

[seemslikeadream]

9. Well well

I was under the impression we couldn't talk like that here :shrug:

[rhett o rick]

71. I was also under that impression. ?????? nm

[EFerrari]

12. This is Diane Feinstein's fault.

:hide:

[WilliamPitt]

16. Pelosi!!!!111

I don't care that she's in the House!!!

Blarg!!11

[EFerrari]

17. LOL!

[OneGrassRoot]

60. Pelosi or Clenis? They're running neck and neck.....

ughhh, how's that for a visual?

:evilgrin:

:toast:

[blondeatlast]

56. Who' s that? Nancy Pelosi said that it's, um, --whatever. It's gotta be her fault.

:evilgrin:

[EFerrari]

76. They're in it together, channeling Duncan Hunter.

:hi:

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

14. Geez, Will.

The blood spurting out of your ears is getting all over this place. Do remember to clean up after yourself.

Oh, and if the Senate DINOS really were serious, they would start kidnapping the children of the repukes and holding them for vote ransom. Right? :sarcasm:

(As if I really needed that tag)

[Marrah_G]

97. I sorta like that idea!

:shrug:

[mmonk]

15. Makes the point the administration can't be handled

through legislation strategy, at least not yet.

[endarkenment]

18. Which is why the only effective path to stop this war was to

VOTE NO ON FUNDING THE OCCUPATION

like we said all along.

[WilliamPitt]

19. In the House.

Which then goes to the Senate.

Which still doesn't have the required 60.

Um...

[endarkenment]

23. Oh please spare me that.

A no vote on an appropriations bill in the house ends the matter. The senate vote is irrelevant. Regardless a simple majority no vote in the senate also ends the matter. You do not need 60 votes to kill a bill, you need 51.

[WilliamPitt]

26. Civics is your friend.

[blondeatlast]

33. Sure, blame it on the citizens. Geez to the second, you're on a roll today.

They only want to hold the party accountable, you know. :sarcasm:

[endarkenment]

34. It seems arrogance is your forte.

Please explain how defeating an appropriations bill requries 60 votes. I am all ears.

[WilliamPitt]

43. OK

According to the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 7, clause 1), all bills relating to revenue, generally tax bills, must originate in the House of Representatives, consistent with the Westminster system requiring all money bills to originate in the lower house. ]The Constiution also states that the "Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills," so in practice the Senate and House traditionally proceed separately, with each body drafting and considering their own bills separately. The Senate generally will amend its version of a particular appropriations bill to the House-passed version in order to send the bill to a conference committee prior to the bill becoming law. This is why the majority of appropriations bills that are enacted contain the H.R. modifier used to identify House introduced legislation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriations_bill

The House passes nothing on its own.

[endarkenment]

48. Yes your arrogance, but the house defeats any appropriations bill all on its own.

"all bills relating to revenue, generally tax bills, must originate in the House of Representatives"

Dead in the house is the end of it. So once again, why should we not hold our Democratic congressional leadership accountible for refunding the occupation, for not taking the one effective means that they had to end the war?

[WilliamPitt]

53. When was the last time

the Senate Appropriations Committee refused to involve themselves in a matter of such importance?

Explain also how any House bill is spared presidential veto power.

[endarkenment]

80. A bill that is defeated is assuredly veto proof.

As I stated at the start of this absurd thread: the one effective means to end the war available to our Congressional leaders was to defeat the war appropriations bill(s), in either the house or the senate. Either one would do it. While we do not have 51 D votes in the Senate we certinaly have a majority in the house. Passing legislation that establishes limits or benchmarks, as we did, just gets vetoed. If Congress wants to end the war, they have to vote NO on war appropriations.

However you are much smarter than I it seems and have all the answers and everything figured out, so no need to actually read anything I wrote.

By the way I work for a living so I cannot camp out on DU to answer posts in real time.

[truedelphi]

83. Thanks for attempting to make that clear. n/t

[WilliamPitt]

69. I guess I don't get an answer to my post above.

[ieoeja]

78. Will, you seem confused on this one.

While I do not necessarily support de-funding the war, the anti-Iraq crowd has their civics correct on this. You seem under the mistaken belief they had to pass a bill to cut off funding.

That is completely backwards. To keep the war going, they have to pass a bill that provides funding. To end it, they don't have to do anything. They don't have to vote for NO funding. They can simply NOT vote FOR funding. That means 51 votes.

Or they can filibuster the funding bill which would mean 41 votes. Though I'm not certain they can filibuster appropriations. If not, then we're back to needing 51 votes.

Of course, there are only 49 Democrats in the Senate. If every one of them wanted to end the war -- and not all of them do -- we can assume that one Independant (Sanders) would join them while all 49 Republicans would oppose them as well as one Independant (Lieberman). That would make it a tie. The Vice President would then break the tie in favor of funding the war.

So you are correct that Senate Democrats need Republican help to end the funding, but they only need ONE more anti-Iraq Republican than pro-Iraq Democrat to do so. Not TEN.

[Strawman]

89. We can't filibuster (budget) reconciliation bills

and what counts as reconciliation is outlined by the "Byrd Rule." If one Senator raises an objection that a provision is not "reconciliation" and hence filibuster-proof, 60 Senators must vote to uphold its filibuster proof status.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(Senate)

Phew! And at the end of all that, I'm still not clear where supplemental appropriations would fall.

Senate rules are absurd. And the kicker is that they'll never be changed because that would require a unanimous vote!

[William769]

36. 49 + 2 = 51

Of course one of those two is Lieberman. Any questions?

[endarkenment]

38. The point is that it does not require 60 votes.

And that is the senate. As I also stated, a defeat in the house ends the matter.

[William769]

40. And my point is we don't even have 51. NT

[endarkenment]

44. Which is a fine point.

Completely irrelevant to what I was posting, but a fine and valid point.

[WilliamPitt]

45. Did you see what happened today?

51 is good with no GOP obstruction.

With GOP obstruction, you need 60.

We don't have 60.

There will be GOP obstruction.

[blondeatlast]

47. We don't have 51 unless you count Senator Hemorrhoid from Connecticut.

Who, in this case, voted no.

[xultar]

85. BUHWAWAWA! Senator Hemorrhoid.

[endarkenment]

93. I understand that.

But the issue of 'we need 60 votes' keeps being brought up and it is false. We need 51 votes to defeat war appropriations bills in the Senate. Likewise a simple majority in the House to vote NO on war appropriations would end the war. Folks here keep confusing the issue by restating this as positive legislation to control the war: deadlines, benchmarks, withdrawal requirements etc. and then stating that this needs 60 in the senate (actually it needs 67 for an override.) Two separate things: passing legislation to control the war, defeating appropriations that fund the war. I have to wonder about the motives of those who conflate these two strategies as it is vastly obvious (at least to me) that they are different.

[John Q. Citizen]

49. Just don't schedule an appropriations vote. no appropriations vote, no money.

The dems wouldn't do it though because they are afraid the Republicans will then accuse them of not supporting the troops. Right?

For some reason the Repos don't seem especially scared that the Dems are accusing them of not supporting the troops.

This is one major difference between our two parties. We see this difference played out over and over on issue after issue, from the occupation to taxes to impeachment.

The Dems are a lot more afraid of what the Repos will say than the Repos are afraid of what the Dems will say.

Or am I wrong?

[Strawman]

77. Exactly. You don't need 60 votes to NOT pass an appropriations bill

Until public pressure is such that we have 67 votes from 17 Republicans crossing over (which may never happen), not funding the war is the only leverage we really have. Whether or not it is a good idea is a different debate, but it's probably the only way to compel a change in policy unless those Republican defections that Democratic opponents of cutting off funds are hoping for start to materialize.

[Captain Hilts]

21. This is the brick wall impeachment faces. nt

[mmonk]

37. No it's not. Impeachment requires a simple majority in the House.

[Captain Hilts]

92. And if Republicans won't desert their Prez on this bill, they certainly won't vote for impeachment.

[mmonk]

99. You mean conviction.

He would already be impeached. Let the chips fall where they may.

[William769]

27. 2+2=4

51 and $3.50 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Any questions?

[WilliamPitt]

30. Apparently post 23 has one or two

or fifty.

[Frances]

28. My hometown (Alabama) newspaper

will once again blame the Democrats for failing to end the war.

So, I really needed this thread. At least I can laugh through my tears.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. "Blarg"?

Is that a word?

[WilliamPitt]

It is now.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. I hear they added "Ginormous" to the Merriam-Webster.

Now when I describe the Bush Administration as a "Ginormous Clusterfuck", I won't feel so bad.

[churchofreality]

87. I love that word.

Makes me think of a huge vagina

[Warren DeMontague]

94. You mean like the one that appeared on the Eisenhower Expressway?

Take that, Heathens!

[churchofreality]

101. It's beautiful... Reminds me of this girl I dated.

[wiggs]

46. But they offered the amendment and voted on it, didn't they. They tried to

do what was right....they did what they could.

No one is blaming dems for not having 60 votes...unworthy strawman.

[blondeatlast]

50. That's pretty much his point, actually. nt

[Forkboy]

51. Thank you.

[WilliamPitt]

54. Thank you.

Worthy strawman...if it makes that exact point.

[wiggs]

86. Of course, part of my point is that they are NOT doing that on other issues...

...NOT doing all they can to discuss, debate, vote on, expose, investigate, modify, and hear public comment on certain oversight duties. The OP to me shows us what it should look like when dc dems want to move on an issue like the Webb amendment. Conversely, it unintentionally shows us what it looks like when dem leaders don't want to discuss an issue, such as impeachment. It doesn't make it to the table, where it belongs, alongside the Webb amendment.

[Virginia Dare]

55. Blast you, James Madison...

this is all your fault!11 The Constitution SUCKS!!111

[DancingBear]

57. Moronic n/t

[shadowknows69]

58. I think it sucks universally

It would be nice if we had a propaganda (truth) machine to get out there and let people know how few Senators on the other side of the aisle care anything of our troops. The headlines will read "Another Defeat for Anti-war Democrats" or Fox News' version "Disturbed former Vet Webb proves he's out of touch with soldiers as legislation fails."

[TwilightGardener]

61. Two veterans propose a troop-rest bill. That the R's would filibuster it

is an example of just how obstinate they plan to be--fuck the soldiers, it's more important to "hold the line" and keep up the illusion of strength and unity with the Chimperor. I am stunned and heartbroken today--I really believed this amendment would pass. And yes, the media will probably paint it as another Dem failure.

[shadowknows69]

62. It is what needs to be done period.

These people are coming back too broken. All they see is death and horror more than they see those that they love. No one should be made to do that, I don't care what oath they swore to the military. Their CIC has betrayed every letter of that oath.

[TwilightGardener]

65. Sending these guys back for four or five deployments to a combat zone

is, to me, akin to psychological torture. This was unheard of in Vietnam--of course, the draft helped with that little problem. Maybe that's what we need--maybe it's time for the big lottery.

[jus_the_facts]

63. "We're gonna need a bigger boat...."

"

[shadowknows69]

68. Fuckin A

[proud2BlibKansan]

64. So it's okay to take it off the table?

Sorry Will, I am rarely disagreeing with you. Pelosi is refusing to even consider impeachment. She needs to open up the debate and see how many votes just might be there. The Scooter commutation brought many non-believers to the impeachment table. National polls show an increasing number of Americans (a majority in some polls) favor impeachment.

The discussion needs to start.

[WilliamPitt]

66. Pelosi is not in the Senate

The Senate is the chamber under discussion.

[proud2BlibKansan]

82. Well forgive me for thinking impeachment starts in the House.

[wiggs]

91. Yep. And I'd suggest that the discussion needs to be started not just

to see how many votes are there but to bring very important issues to the body responsible for oversight, including impeachment, in order to debate, discuss, expose, and air out the most secretive, immoral, criminal, power hungry administration in my lifetime. It is the right thing to do.

Maybe debate would lead to impeachment or maybe just censure or maybe appointment of special prosecutor or maybe we would find out about more misdeeds or maybe the country would find out which republicans want to defend WH misdeeds or maybe republicans would ask officials to resign rather than face impeachment or maybe more people would be exposed to the truth or maybe the next president who wants to break laws would think twice about it or maybe it should be done because it is the duty of congress to do it or maybe journalists around the world would help investigate or maybe extensive public discourse in the media would help convince even more Americans of the necessity, or maybe other countries would see the rebellious effort and realize that all the insanity of the last 6 years is not reflective of our country....A LOT OF GOOD COULD COME FROM AT LEAST THE DEBATE.

....and we know that more bad will happen without the debate, don't we.

[Bandit]

67. Golly for five years Democrats couldn't do this at all

Republicans do it on a consistant basis. Republicans didn't have a sixty vote majority either but they sure got their bills passed.. Why is that do you think???????????????????????

[WilliamPitt]

70. Because we played fair.

[DS1]

72. Today Massachusetts Representative Pitt (B) voted for Resolution 14

calling for the serialization and registration of all cinderblocks in the State.

The bill is expected to fail, despite a comprehensive "Get out the Vote" campaign by the Blarg party

[Jersey Devil]

73. How cute and clever

Not

[wiggs]

88. See post #86 above. I think the OP

shows us how dems can at least bring an issue to the floor and have it discussed. The OP also unintentionally illustrates that we are NOT GETTING THE SAME CHANCE ON IMPEACHMENT/OVERSIGHT ISSUES...these are not being afforded the light of day that the Webb amendment had and deserved.

I don't understand the sentiment by many who point out that the Webb defeat somehow validates why impeachment shouldn't be debated. If anything, the Webb amendment process shows that dems should do all they can on issues they care about, including bringing an important issue to the floor to discuss.

Republicans look bad on Webb...republicans would look really bad defending a WH that has a 26% approval rating and that has clearly committed crimes.

[GeorgeGist]

74. Hows about ...

the :nuke: option?

[Joe Fields]

75. Then they need to keep putting it up to a vote....

day in and day out, until they get the job done.

[xultar]

84. DINO traitor enabler Democrats!!!111 you forgot incompetent milquetoast

muthafuckas

[EFerrari]

95. I read that as "milktoes".

:rofl:

[blondeatlast]

105. See Madame's List for those...

:rofl:

[Marrah_G]

96. A voice of sanity !

Thank you Will.

[Moochy]

98. hahahahahahahah

War Enabling is a hoot!

[Usrename]

100. You must be asking about Alito.

42 Senators voted that he was unfit to be on the court. Yet there he is.

Is that the dumbass question you are asking?

No. It couldn't be. Only a fucking moran would be that stoopid.

:dunce:

Right?

[leftofthedial]

102. they actually brought this bill forward

it was not "off the table"

[wiggs]

103. That was my point as well. That's what should happen with

issues majority dems care about: bring bill, discuss, debate, hear input, send to floor, more debate and input, cloture vote, if still alive then floor vote. All transparent, out in the open, with the public given a chance to understand the issue and decide what to think about the arguments and participants.

The rules of the game require that the teams (including the underdog) show up ready to play with uniform on. Hiding the ball and claiming you want to play is not allowed.

[leftofthedial]

104. on the illegal occupation of Iraq, impeachment and serious economic issues,

BOTH sides are playing out the clock until 2009