Cheney wanted cuts in climate testimony

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
At least he has voted more than Obama.
The real joke is congress, you have a democratic congress who even with a majority cannot get anything done and has have the approval rating of the president.
Or if you want a even better joke they are talking aobut raising the gas tax by a dime.

Oh Tina. Your slant is so entertaining.

The last three bills sent to Monkeyboybush were vetoed. Repeat, the DEMOCRATICALLY controlled congress sent Republican Pres. BUSH bill after bill and it was vetoed. Luckily, congress over-rode three of his vetoes which proves just how lame this duck is and has been for the last few years.

That's probably why monkeyboybush has 'changed his tiny mind' about the housing crisis relief bill he is about to get on his desk, hopefully this week. Now he said he is going to sign it after saying again and again "I will VETO this bill if it reaches my desk."

I guess he must have heard about this 'legacy' talk and figured time is running out and he better do something so he actually has one,(besides his legacy of failures).

Too late.

x0x0x wrote:

<quoted text>Oh Tina. Your slant is so entertaining.
The last three bills sent to Monkeyboybush were vetoed. Repeat, the DEMOCRATICALLY controlled congress sent Republican Pres. BUSH bill after bill and it was vetoed. Luckily, congress over-rode three of his vetoes which proves just how lame this duck is and has been for the last few years.
That's probably why monkeyboybush has 'changed his tiny mind' about the housing crisis relief bill he is about to get on his desk, hopefully this week. Now he said he is going to sign it after saying again and again "I will VETO this bill if it reaches my desk."
I guess he must have heard about this 'legacy' talk and figured time is running out and he better do something so he actually has one,(besides his legacy of failures).
Too late.

I still can't find anything wrong with Bush.

he also wanted to coverup the shotgun story more than it got covered up. Just because he wants it doesn't mean it's right.

x0x0x wrote:

<quoted text>Oh Tina. Your slant is so entertaining.
The last three bills sent to Monkeyboybush were vetoed. Repeat, the DEMOCRATICALLY controlled congress sent Republican Pres. BUSH bill after bill and it was vetoed. Luckily, congress over-rode three of his vetoes which proves just how lame this duck is and has been for the last few years.
That's probably why monkeyboybush has 'changed his tiny mind' about the housing crisis relief bill he is about to get on his desk, hopefully this week. Now he said he is going to sign it after saying again and again "I will VETO this bill if it reaches my desk."
I guess he must have heard about this 'legacy' talk and figured time is running out and he better do something so he actually has one,(besides his legacy of failures).
Too late.

That is funny, 2/3 of congress can override a veto. So they cannot find 370 memebers of congress and 67 memeber of the senate to disagree with the "monkeyboy".

He might be worried about his legacy. After all of the last four presidents before him half have a less than stellar legacy for the history books. Carter has been working non stop to try and improve his while Clinton must be hoping his will fade into the wood work, which will more likely happen. Which will happen to this lame duck pres as well. After all how many people remeber what Ford was like while everyone still remebers Nixon.

protective mutha wrote:

<quoted text>Clinton was just as addicted to sleeze and still is.

Which isn't surprising considering i have met other men who were addicted to the exact same thing and they still are. What surprised me about him is the Hillary didn't have enought self respect to kick his butt out. I know if I was married to a man like that who could not keep it in his pants then I would. Then again I should not judge because I don't know if he is getting any at home.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
That is funny, 2/3 of congress can override a veto. So they cannot find 370 memebers of congress and 67 memeber of the senate to disagree with the "monkeyboy".
He might be worried about his legacy. After all of the last four presidents before him half have a less than stellar legacy for the history books. Carter has been working non stop to try and improve his while Clinton must be hoping his will fade into the wood work, which will more likely happen. Which will happen to this lame duck pres as well. After all how many people remeber what Ford was like while everyone still remebers Nixon.

Can you not read? Three of bushs veto's HAVE been over ridden. Plenty of people disagree with your boy. That is why his approval rating is at a record low of 25%. I guess 75% of the population agrees with me.

As for Clintons legacy: Peace, Prosperity and record growth. Nice attempt at re-writing history.

x0x0x wrote:

<quoted text>Can you not read? Three of bushs veto's HAVE been over ridden. Plenty of people disagree with your boy. That is why his approval rating is at a record low of 25%. I guess 75% of the population agrees with me.
As for Clintons legacy: Peace, Prosperity and record growth. Nice attempt at re-writing history.

You make the point for us...
They CAN and DO override the veto when they want to. Blame them if they are not getting your agenda done.

WeElectedABunchOfIdiots wrote:

<quoted text>
You make the point for us...
They CAN and DO override the veto when they want to. Blame them if they are not getting your agenda done.

My agenda? If you had read the origin of the subject, instead of injecting yourself mid-conversation, you would better know what the hell you are talking about.

Democrats have done their job.
They've sent countless bills to the President.
He then vetoed them.(God forbid we give credit
to a democratically controlled Congress and SO WHAT if the people have to suffer.)

If you're point is that they only get the 'job done' when the President challenges them, then you are mistaken. A bill can't become a law without his signature. Didn't you watch 'schoolhouse rock'?

They DO their job, while Bush plays politics, clears brush and works out.

"A bill can't become a law without his signature."

Wrong. There arw not one, but two ways a bill becomes law WITHOUT the president's signature.

"Didn't you watch 'schoolhouse rock'?"

We actually had civics classes.

"They DO their job, while Bush plays politics, clears brush and works out."

Sort of like Democrats sitting on hundreds of Bush judicial nominees, even though all are "highly rated?"

x0x0x wrote:

<quoted text>My agenda? If you had read the origin of the subject, instead of injecting yourself mid-conversation, you would better know what the hell you are talking about.
Democrats have done their job.
They've sent countless bills to the President.
He then vetoed them.(God forbid we give credit
to a democratically controlled Congress and SO WHAT if the people have to suffer.)
If you're point is that they only get the 'job done' when the President challenges them, then you are mistaken. A bill can't become a law without his signature. Didn't you watch 'schoolhouse rock'?
They DO their job, while Bush plays politics, clears brush and works out.

If they continue to send him bills he has already promised to veto - they aren't "doing" anything!
You see it differently - that's your problem.
IMO - They send bills he does not support, does not believe in and/or has already promised to veto. They should work harder at getting a consensus before hand, but that would mean they'd have to deal with him.
They won't do it. They will continue to try an "force-feed" legislation down his throat. That is not only vindictive, it is not productive.

WeElectedABunchOfIdiots wrote:

<quoted text>
If they continue to send him bills he has already promised to veto - they aren't "doing" anything!
You see it differently - that's your problem.
IMO - They send bills he does not support, does not believe in and/or has already promised to veto. They should work harder at getting a consensus before hand, but that would mean they'd have to deal with him.
They won't do it. They will continue to try an "force-feed" legislation down his throat. That is not only vindictive, it is not productive.

So now you are damning them FOR passing legislation and just a short time ago you were condemning them for not doing anything. I see that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. That's what we call 'Bushbonics'.

Douger wrote:

"A bill can't become a law without his signature."
Wrong. There arw not one, but two ways a bill becomes law WITHOUT the president's signature.
"Didn't you watch 'schoolhouse rock'?"
We actually had civics classes.
"They DO their job, while Bush plays politics, clears brush and works out."
Sort of like Democrats sitting on hundreds of Bush judicial nominees, even though all are "highly rated?"

I guess you missed the part where we talked about his vetoes being over ridden by Congress, three times to date. We get it, but thanks for the attempt to school us.

Nothing like a conservative to tell us how to do things. Now if they could only follow their own advice. lol

x0x0x wrote:

<quoted text>So now you are damning them FOR passing legislation and just a short time ago you were condemning them for not doing anything. I see that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. That's what we call 'Bushbonics'.

Passing legislation that won't go anywhere is a complete waste of time. INO - it's the same as doing nothing or worse. They could have been working on legislation that would have done something, but they're to stupid or lazy to do the work.

"I guess you missed the part where we talked about his vetoes being over ridden by Congress, three times to date."

I got it just fine. I agree with the reasons for Bush's veto on all three bills, but hey, that's how a republic works.

YOU must not have gotten the part about being wrong in stating that a bill can't become law without the president's signature.

"Passing legislation that won't go anywhere is a complete waste of time. INO - it's the same as doing nothing or worse. They could have been working on legislation that would have done something, but they're to stupid or lazy to do the work."

It's how politics works. The opposition party passes legislation knowing it won't pass simply to try and force the president's hand. In some cases it's pure vindictiveness. Other times, it's angling for a different package.

I think liberals are about to get punked when they get drilling forced down their throats.

x0x0x wrote:

<quoted text>Can you not read? Three of bushs veto's HAVE been over ridden. Plenty of people disagree with your boy. That is why his approval rating is at a record low of 25%. I guess 75% of the population agrees with me.
As for Clintons legacy: Peace, Prosperity and record growth. Nice attempt at re-writing history.

Only three, which isn't what you could call a impressive number.

As for the Clintons legacy: Travelgate, White Water, Jennifer Flowers, and numerous others.

The Peace, Prosperity and record growth isn't Clinton, it was Ronald Reagan. But then again after Carter he had no where to go but up.

Douger wrote:

"A bill can't become a law without his signature."
Wrong. There arw not one, but two ways a bill becomes law WITHOUT the president's signature.
"Didn't you watch 'schoolhouse rock'?"
We actually had civics classes.
"They DO their job, while Bush plays politics, clears brush and works out."
Sort of like Democrats sitting on hundreds of Bush judicial nominees, even though all are "highly rated?"

Actually I did watch School House Rock and found it again for my kids.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Only three, which isn't what you could call a impressive number.
As for the Clintons legacy: Travelgate, White Water, Jennifer Flowers, and numerous others.
The Peace, Prosperity and record growth isn't Clinton, it was Ronald Reagan. But then again after Carter he had no where to go but up.

Three overridden vetoes in such a short period of time IS a big deal, but you are green in the ways of politics. It shows he is beyond weak or 'lame' as they say.

As for Clintons and your rumor mill, no charges were ever filed for any 'gate'.

Peace Prosperity under REAGAN? Are you kidding me? Did you not hear about the stock market crash in the 80's? I guess you don't know about the numerous conflicts worldwide under Ronnie boy. He gave Osama all the weapons and money he wanted to fight the Russians and then 'poof', we abandoned Osama. Guess how THAT story turned out little girl!!! You guessed it. Osama is now using those weapons to shoot down helicopters and kill our own soldiers. I won't even go into the fact that Reagans staff KNEW he had alzheimers for YEARS and chose to keep it from the American public. He and his wife were actually using a medium and the stars to make decisions about our country. Unforgivable.

x0x0x wrote:

<quoted text>Three overridden vetoes in such a short period of time IS a big deal, but you are green in the ways of politics. It shows he is beyond weak or 'lame' as they say.
As for Clintons and your rumor mill, no charges were ever filed for any 'gate'.
Peace Prosperity under REAGAN? Are you kidding me? Did you not hear about the stock market crash in the 80's? I guess you don't know about the numerous conflicts worldwide under Ronnie boy. He gave Osama all the weapons and money he wanted to fight the Russians and then 'poof', we abandoned Osama. Guess how THAT story turned out little girl!!! You guessed it. Osama is now using those weapons to shoot down helicopters and kill our own soldiers. I won't even go into the fact that Reagans staff KNEW he had alzheimers for YEARS and chose to keep it from the American public. He and his wife were actually using a medium and the stars to make decisions about our country. Unforgivable.

Yes, but he also fixed it which is more than Carter ever did. Even then there were people who were claiming that the president either didn't know and was blind sided or claiming the whole thing was a deliberate act by the White House.
In reality was a severe market adjustment.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/july-d...
http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id329.htm
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/...

I do remeber the ATC strike and that did have some negative effects on the markets.

Yes, I will admit that the CIA had been involved in Afganistan including giving missles that were used to shoot down russian helicopters. On the other hand I would not want to be the person firing that same missle today. It would be like playing Russian Roulette. You should of also mentioned at one point we were giving Saddam help against the Iranians as well. That was a little sloppy.

It is also kinda comical about how you talk about how bad Reagan was and forget that Clinton was just as bad if not worse. At least whe Reagan claimed under oath he could not remeber at least he wasn't lying. I wish Clinton could claim the same.

There isn't enough space for this thread to list the many accomplishments of the Cheney-Bush administration.

1)

I love America. I'll fix this.