Midnight Judges Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Just this week Republicans filibustered the defense appropriations bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They obviously were not doing this because they believe in letting our troops operate without the necessay resources, they were doing so because it was a parliamentrary tactic to delay other items on the agenda in the Senate. But my point is this: Does anyone else remember when voting against funding the troops was regarded as an act of treason in Republican circles? Particularly in 2004 ($87 billion blah blah blah) and especially last year at the Republican convention and on the camapaign trail when Cindy McCain said: "I'm proud of my sons, but let me tell you, the day that Senator Obama decided to cast a vote to not fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body," she said, drawing a chorus of boos. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/10/cindy_mccain_bl.html So now that John McCain not only voted against funding the troops, he participated in a filibuster against funding the troops, do you think Cindy is making him sleep on the couch? And for those of you who listen to Republican radio, how do you square this filibuster with all the troop funding rhetoric from a year ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Nevermind....I'll allow you to wallow in your own bitterness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 The same way partisans always do. "Its different when we do it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Nevermind....I'll allow you to wallow in your own bitterness. bitterness? Perhaps what you meant was "you know what, pretending the democrats were against the troops was wrong now that I see very clearly that the same people making those accusations do the same things" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 bitterness? Perhaps what you meant was "you know what, pretending the democrats were against the troops was wrong now that I see very clearly that the same people making those accusations do the same things" It's all politics, Des. Why are there 1800 earmarks in the bill? Cause a dungpile load of Democrats had to get their palms greased to support it. The high and mighty act is as transparent as a snowed-in day is long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 It's all politics, Des. Why are there 1800 earmarks in the bill?Cause a dungpile load of Democrats had to get their palms greased to support it. The high and mighty act is as transparent as a snowed-in day is long. Agreed, but that was the Dems said too when they were told that they didn't support the troops if they voted against any military funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephisto Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Republicans are extremely hypocritical for doing this, though the process of sneaking other political items onto an unrelated "must-pass" bill (used extensively by both parties) is despicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Just one more reason I hate all parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 It's all politics, Des. Why are there 1800 earmarks in the bill?Cause a dungpile load of Democrats had to get their palms greased to support it. The high and mighty act is as transparent as a snowed-in day is long. None of those 1800 are Republican earmarks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Let's ask the other question while we're at it too, where are the democrats who rationalized their party not funding the troops during the Bush administration, and why aren't THEY doing so now? One hypocrite is no better than the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 None of those 1800 are Republican earmarks? I'm sure some of them are, but then why would you filibuster against your own interest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Let's ask the other question while we're at it too, where are the democrats who rationalized their party not funding the troops during the Bush administration, and why aren't THEY doing so now?One hypocrite is no better than the other. I think Ben Kenobi said it best the first time he came to DC-- "You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy" Strangely, both the Republican and Democrat bounty hunters chose the name Greedo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 I'm sure some of them are, but then why would you filibuster against your own interest?Political expediency?I'm sure we can find situations where congressmen voted against bills they actually sponsored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 I think Ben Kenobi said it best the first time he came to DC--"You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy" Strangely, both the Republican and Democrat bounty hunters chose the name Greedo :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: (Or at least it would be funny if it wasn't true. Classic post, Burg.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Political expediency?I'm sure we can find situations where congressmen voted against bills they actually sponsored. Like Charlie Wrangel's Draft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 19, 2009 Author Share Posted December 19, 2009 I'm sure some of them are, but then why would you filibuster against your own interest? To hedge your bet essentially. For example, Ron Paul is the king of earmarks but he votes against every appropriations bill. Makes no difference though, because he knows the bill must ultimately pass. His followers wrongly credit him with not playing the beltway game, and the people he bribes to fund his campaigns with federal money are appeased simultaneously. Like you said, it's merely politics, which is the underlying point of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Just one more reason I hate all parties. For me, I'd add "and most people." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Actually, one of the things I really enjoy in these almost-daily Tailgate cries if "Hypocrisy!!!!" is the way that, when the Party labels change, the partisans from both sides will trade positions, and then immediately begin pointing fingers at the other side's changing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Like you said, it's merely politics, which is the underlying point of this thread. Makes sense. And I don't care if you're as polar opposite politically as you and I are, you can't help but get pissed off at the system over things like this; and how they are interpreted/misrepresented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 It's all politics, Des. Why are there 1800 earmarks in the bill?Cause a dungpile load of Democrats had to get their palms greased to support it. The high and mighty act is as transparent as a snowed-in day is long. There are always earmarks in these bills. It was politics then and it's politics now. Notice the absence of "republicans hate our troops" accusations this time though. You don't consider that a significant difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 19, 2009 Author Share Posted December 19, 2009 Actually, one of the things I really enjoy in these almost-daily Tailgate cries if "Hypocrisy!!!!" is the way that, when the Party labels change, the partisans from both sides will trade positions, and then immediately begin pointing fingers at the other side's changing. I don't see anyone saying Republicans don't support the troops, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 There are always earmarks in these bills. It was politics then and it's politics now. Notice the absence of "republicans hate our troops" accusations this time though. You don't consider that a significant difference? Well, there was a thread then, there's a thread now. If any republican office holder actually said "democrats hate our troops" the first time around, I would condemn that too. (But I've been in enough of these threads to know who the "victims" are.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 I don't see anyone saying Republicans don't support the troops, etc. But I do see somebody who (I suspect. I admit I haven't checked) didn't have a problem with the Democrats filibustering a troop-funding bill, starting a thread to object to the Republicans doing so. See, funny thing is, if the one side flip-flopped, and the other side didn't, then they'd both wind up on the same side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 I don't see anyone saying Republicans don't support the troops, etc. Time to bust out the argument I usually get in threads....history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 But I do see somebody who (I suspect. I admit I haven't checked) didn't have a problem with the Democrats filibustering a troop-funding bill, starting a thread to object to the Republicans doing so. See, funny thing is, if the one side flip-flopped, and the other side didn't, then they'd both wind up on the same side. Damn, have I really been gone so long that even Larry is making sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.