DHS funded for the rest of the fiscal year by a bill that had
no riders....a clean one....wow, heckuva way to run the gubment!
Here's a thought....awww, nm...
DHS funded for the rest of the fiscal year by a bill that had
no riders....a clean one....wow, heckuva way to run the gubment!
Here's a thought....awww, nm...
Rock...once the court shot down executive amnesty I thought the pubs should have funded it right then figuring it will be a while before the courts can overturn the decision....it also gave them an out with the base.
court schmort congress schmongress constitution whazzat. Democrat talking points and their megaphoned trumpeters are what goes in today's America. It's all executive power, at least until the democrats regain congress.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
Well, he's a **** sucking weeping Oompa Loompa, so who could be surprised?
There's a considerable amount of hypocrisy by many who criticize this (rightfully so). A few facts need to be kept in mind:
1)A REPUBLICAN President, George W. Bush, created the Department of Homeland Security -- an entirely new cabinet level bureaucracy built from the ground up. When we talk about the 'growth of government', this is a concrete example of such growth.
2)The DHS routinely threatens the liberty and civil rights of ordinary American citizens while organizing to combat a "right-wing revolution."
3)DHS is largely responsible for the militarization of police forces by selling military-grade equipment and vehicles to law enforcement agencies while providing new training programs that treat law-abiding citizens as adversaries to be monitored as opposed to citizens to be protected.
4)DHS and the entire national security apparatus continues to have strong conservative/Republican support despite the threats and dangers posed to civil rights/liberties.
...with all of that in mind, it's pretty hypocritical for some to get made at that bleeding vagina -- Boehner for pushing through a DHS funding bill. The agency should never have been created in the first place, but everyone was too busy praising the hell out of Bush as he expanded the size and scope of government in ways that Clinton and Carter could only have dreamed of -- a policy continued by his successor. DHS was and remains a Republican created and Republican funded Federal agency that has no reason to exist.
I don't think you can lay the DHS 100% at Bush's feet. He did sign into law it's creation but this was in the works for a while as a recommendation from the Hart-Rudman commission started under Clinton to study how to handle "homeland" security moving forward etc. and they bent Bush over pretty hard after 9/11 saying if he had followed their recommendations that would have been prevented the attack.
The whole don't let a crisis go to waste mentality.
I agree with you, damn thing is a mistake. They should be looking outward instead of inward. Militarizing police forces and monitoring American citizens who have legitimate disagreements with the government which is within our rights, is bull****.
It's amazing how quickly and how willing people are to give up rights under the pretense of being safe.
Little doubt the voters erred bigtime by not electing algore and john effing kerry in 00 and 04, and would be srsly advised to vote in Hillry or Warren or whomever d in 16
and BTW, muchos kudos to us, for wisely choosing Bear in 08 and 12.Without Him, we wouldn't have gotten all the free chit from govt, and the warm and generous welcome to all the new citizens.
Last edited by RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!; 3/4/2015 at 09:38 AM.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
I am done with Boner and the Repubs. I will vote to screw them up as much as possible from here on out. Why? They are no retort to the Leftists, they are just leftist lite. They were given a mandate this past election and have given us all the finger intheir capitulation. Definitely the party of Neville Chamberlain...
Everything progressives do is aimed at weakening democracy, capitalism and the social and cultural institutions that support those things...... They are about subjugating people and being a ruling class.
and so it goes, the election that marked the end of opposition to statism. Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, you finally prevail! the Joy!
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
The problem is there are no choices...sucks. I'll vote for every new person in the primaries....but it won't matter. Then we are stuck with a pub or dem....a vote for the independent is a vote for the dem.
Like I've said many times before...it's a joke. They ALL are in bed with each other. They only want to keep themselves in office and us paying for it. I would bet that the majority of American Citizens, legal, 75% would support term limits...yet it NEVER gets brought up...EVER.
How do you know if you get there, if you don't know where you are going?..oh and I had 1,713 post on the "other board"..I hate being a rookie again!
That's an asinine and bull**** thing to say, and I'm so sick of hearing that damned argument that it gets under my skin every time. No. A vote for an independent (or third party which is really what I think you mean) is NOT a vote for a Democrat. It absolutely is not. Either a Republican earns your vote or he doesn't. I have absolutely NO respect for someone who votes Republican when there is an independent/third party candidate available more in-line with that person's politics...whether it be from the left or the right. Either you vote for someone you legitimately believe in or DON'T VOTE! Because doing otherwise is the reason the country is in the shape that it's in. YOU are the problem....not someone who votes Democrat....YOU are the problem. Let me make this clear: Stop voting because you're ****ing the country up.
Didn't say any of that wasn't true. That he signed it and republican's and dem's enthusiastically supported it is correct.
Just pointed out the "concept" wasn't his and he initially pre 9/11, hadn't committed to supporting it. That's not spin. Just the way it unfolded.
Whether he would have supported it in a world without 9/11 taking place is anyones guess, but initially that wasn't the case.
Most enthusiastically supported it, but when you say a line like "The President signed it...", the implication is that the DHS bill was not his own. Make no mistake, the creation of DHS was very much his plan regardless of the fact that the creation of that agency was built upon previous work -- that's largely irrelevant. Most legislation on that scale is the result of work done and proposals in previous years -- sometimes decades in the making. That's neither new nor special to the case of DHS.
The "concept" of any legislation is rarely the President's. That's what Think Tanks are for. You could use that same argument to absolve Obama of responsibility for the Affordable Care Act. That's how these things work. The argument you're making is absolutely no different than any other major piece of legislation any given Administration supports or proposes that Congress pass.Just pointed out the "concept" wasn't his and he initially pre 9/11, hadn't committed to supporting it. That's not spin. Just the way it unfolded.
He would not have supported it because it's unlikely the issue would ever have been before him. It would never have reached the White House to the point that he would have had to make a decision, but pre-9/11 Bush in general was very different than post-9/11 Bush. Bush was the guy who campaigned in 2000 *against* nation building. It's one of the reasons I supported him in the 2000 primary.Whether he would have supported it in a world without 9/11 taking place is anyones guess, but initially that wasn't the case.
Sorry Sicem, he's correct about the third party vote helping the democrat get elected. Simple math is irrefutable. As screwed up as many, too many, republicans are, I don't see any that are as damaging to the country as virtually all democrats in politics, and I agree that we are in dire straits right now as a country. But, the only thing that makes sense is to limit damage, or vote for the person that is least objectionable, and that has a chance of actually winning. Simple as that.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
that's bull****, screw you...so voting for your independent / third party has got you where? It'll be a day that he11 freezes over that a third party will even get close to winning anything.. I vote for the challenger in the primaries and it's usually not even close..but I try. Tell me how well voting for your independent has turned out? Has any of them ever beat out a dem? I really could care less if you, some internet person I've never met, never will, nor has ANY value to me respects me...lol.
How do you know if you get there, if you don't know where you are going?..oh and I had 1,713 post on the "other board"..I hate being a rookie again!
That works both ways. It can also help, and has helped, Republicans get elected. But that's beside the point -- if a Democrat gets elected because the Republicans offer a ****ty candidate then that's nobody's fault but Republicans. The inability of you or other Republicans to take responsibility for the fact that Republicans haven't offered a product worth buying is astounding to me. It's simple capitalism. Either offer the market something they want to buy or go out of business. But don't blame the consumer for making a choice consistent with that consumer's needs and beliefs.
Of course you don't which is why the country is in the state that it's in, it's the reason the Republican Party has a difficult time winning national elections, and it's the reason that the public doesn't trust the Republican agenda.I don't see any that are as damaging to the country as virtually all democrats in politics, and I agree that we are in dire straits right now as a country. But, the only thing that makes sense is to limit damage, or vote for the person that is least objectionable, and that has a chance of actually winning. Simple as that.