For Dems only.

[southsider2k5]

What isn't reflected in the totals, and I can't answer this because I rarely venture in the GOP, is the nature of the posts. Are the Dems coming over there and arguing? Are debates flaring up between Dems and GOP in that thread like they are here? That is a bigger issue IMHO than post counts.

 

And it should also be asked, is the site better or worse if there is a totally partisan area that allows for hyperbole? That allows for each side to commiserate?

 

I thought yes. Still do.

 

To be honest, the Dems most get ignored in the GOP thread as I see it. It does take two to tango.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I think I've posted once or twice over in that thread, but then I realized how silly it is to do so. I try to respect your guys' right to have hyperbolic conversations about politics (much like the ones that happen in this thread).

 

Exactly the way I feel. I posted the second post in the GOP thread the day it was put up for a laugh and I haven't set foot in the joint since. I like the "only" idea on both sides, but certainly don't want to see it enforced or anything because obviouly Kap, Balta, Northside72, and SS enjoy wandering freely between the two clubhouses.

 

But, hey, we all have a freak or two in our closet.

Edited January 30, 2007 by FlaSoxxJim

[Texsox]

To be honest, the Dems most get ignored in the GOP thread as I see it. It does take two to tango.

 

That would indicate the problem lays with the Dems who respond in the Dem thread?

[southsider2k5]

That would indicate the problem lays with the Dems who respond in the Dem thread?

 

No, I believe that each person is responsible for their own actions. Hence it takes two to tango. How very GOP of me

[kapkomet]

Actually I think for the most part I've tried to stay pretty civil in this thread. And I've actually agreed with some things in here, and on those oh so rare occasions, I better say so.

[Rex Kickass]

Girls, you're all pretty.

[Rex Kickass]

The Republicans allow closure on the Minimum Wage issue, the filibuster was broken 87-10 today.

 

I wonder if this is why....

 

A week after the GOP-led Senate rejected an increase to the minimum wage, Senate Democrats on Tuesday vowed to block pay raises for members of Congress until the minimum wage is increased.

 

"We're going to do anything it takes to stop the congressional pay raise this year, and we're not going to settle for this year alone," Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said at a Capitol news conference.

 

"They can play all the games the want," Reid said derisively of the Republicans who control the chamber. "They can deal with gay marriage, estate tax, flag burning, all these issues and avoid issues like the prices of gasoline, sending your kid to college. But we're going to do everything to stop the congressional pay raise."

 

The minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. Democrats want to raise it to $7.25. During the past nine years, as Democrats have tried unsuccessfully to increase the minimum wage, members of Congress have voted to give themselves pay raises -- technically "cost of living increases" -- totaling $31,600, or more than $15 an hour for a 40-hour week, 52 weeks a year, according to the Congressional Research Service.

[Balta1701]

The Republicans allow closure on the Minimum Wage issue, the filibuster was broken 87-10 today.

 

I wonder if this is why....

Different possible option: By Filibustering on the Minimum Wage vote, the Republicans also kept the Senate from voting on any of the Iraq augmentation opposition bills hanging around. Reid finally also said "Enough is enough...if they keep the filibuster going on that bill, we're moving on to the next stuff either way", so the delaying benefit finally dried up.

[mr_genius]

I would actually say your post was more waaaaaaaaaaaawaaaaaaaaaaaaa mean old dems.

 

 

my post never mentioned the Dems. my post mocked the link texsox posted. i would say that the vast majority of democrats would also find the link he posted ridiculous.

 

Yep, amazing a Psych Grad student using a Psych term. Wow, that is amusing.

to some.

 

 

being a psych grad is amusing in it's self. I can't imagine the scholarly intellect that must go into such an endeavor.

 

i keed ! i keed!

 

ok, i'm leaving the 'Dem only' thread, never to return. if u wish to post a smart-alecky retort, please do so in GOP only. well, atleast until i get kicked off that thread for not being conservative enough. then just send me an email telling me how dumb i am.

Edited January 31, 2007 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

Um...

Does President Bush have it in for the press corps? Touring a Caterpillar factory in Peoria, Ill., the Commander in Chief got behind the wheel of a giant tractor and played chicken with a few wayward reporters. Wearing a pair of stylish safety glasses--at least more stylish than most safety glasses--Bush got a mini-tour of the factory before delivering remarks on the economy. "I would suggest moving back," Bush said as he climbed into the cab of a massive D-10 tractor. "I'm about to crank this sucker up." As the engine roared to life, White House staffers tried to steer the press corps to safety, but when the tractor lurched forward, they too were forced to scramble for safety."Get out of the way!" a news photographer yelled. "I think he might run us over!" said another. White House aides tried to herd the reporters the right way without getting run over themselves. Even the Secret Service got involved, as one agent began yelling at reporters to get clear of the tractor. Watching the chaos below, Bush looked out the tractor's window and laughed, steering the massive machine into the spot where most of the press corps had been positioned. The episode lasted about a minute, and Bush was still laughing when he pulled to a stop. He gave reporters a thumbs-up. "If you've never driven a D-10, it's the coolest experience," Bush said afterward. Yeah, almost as much fun as seeing your life flash before your eyes.

[EvilMonkey]

The Republicans allow closure on the Minimum Wage issue, the filibuster was broken 87-10 today.

 

I wonder if this is why....

This story says the same thing, but in a different way...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070130/ap_on_...gress_pay_raise

Republicans block congressional pay hike

 

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer Tue Jan 30, 1:37 PM ET

 

WASHINGTON - When Democrats blasted Republicans last fall for taking annual congressional pay raises while blocking numerous attempts to raise the minimum wage, it was an effective campaign tactic. Democrats vowed not to accept the annual cost-of-living hike until Congress increases the minimum wage.

 

But Republicans angered over the political attacks are unwilling to allow Democrats to reinstate the so-called members' COLA, forcing Democratic leaders to scuttle the 1.7 percent pay hike for the entire year.

 

"There will be no COLA adjustment," said a disappointed Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record) of Maryland, the House's No. 2 Democrat, on Tuesday.

 

Hoyer has for years played a central role in finessing the ticklish issue of lawmakers' pay, working cozily with GOP leaders to make sure an annual pay-related vote went smoothly.

 

Lawmakers' pay will be frozen at $165,200 for this year in the dispute, in which Democrats violated a yearslong understanding that the competing parties would not use the pay raise issue in campaign ads.

 

Under the annual COLA, lawmakers automatically get a pay hike unless Congress votes to block it. Hoyer and GOP leaders such as Minority Whip Roy Blunt (news, bio, voting record), R-Mo., made sure to smooth over any potential obstacles to the pay hike.

 

Typically, the annual vote on the pay hike came on an obscure procedural move — instead of a direct up-or-down vote — and the Democratic and GOP whips each delivered a roughly equal number of votes to shut off any move to block the pay hike.

 

Blunt said Democrats broke the agreement last year after the pay raise-related vote had already taken place. In a 263-152 vote in June, the House blocked a bid by Rep. Jim Matheson (news, bio, voting record), D-Utah, to force an up-or-down vote on the pay raise.

 

"The agreement always was that the parties would not use the COLA issue in the campaign," Blunt said. "It was as formal as anything not signed is."

 

Under the congressional pay raise law enacted in 1989, lawmakers won a big pay raise in exchange for giving up honoraria for personal gain. The COLA was born as part of the reforms, but it also had the political benefit of freeing lawmakers from having to vote on pay hikes.

 

The issue is ripe because a GOP-drafted stopgap spending bill carrying language delaying the pay hike expires Feb. 15 — and lawmakers would automatically start receiving their raises the following day.

 

A huge spending bill for the current budget year is moving through the House on Wednesday, and Democrats tried in recent days to reach agreement with Republicans on language to delay the pay raise a few more weeks or months to provide more time for the minimum wage bill to advance into law.

 

Republicans said no.

 

"The DCCC ran their own ads attacking (GOP) members on this," Blunt said. "Because of that their members are going to suffer in terms of not being able to have a COLA."

 

Members were originally due to begin receiving a 1.7 percent, or $2,800, annual increase Jan. 1. They had already lost about $320 with the delay to Feb. 16.

 

Senate GOP Whip Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record), R-Miss., pressed for congressional pay hikes since his days as a member of the House Republican leadership. Lott expressed disappointment at the news, noting there's no shortage of wealthy lawmakers — such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) of California and Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) — using the pay raise issue as a political sword.

 

"It's very easy for the multimillionaires ... to demagogue this issue," Lott said.

[Texsox]

No, I believe that each person is responsible for their own actions. Hence it takes two to tango. How very GOP of me

 

OK, I agree with that.

 

Is an area for Dems and Reps to go to without taunts, jeers, and "dissenting opinion" a good thing? If so, then isn't the right thing to do to respect the other person's, space and to be a good guest? How very DEM of me.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Something I'd like to say clearly for anyone who's willing to listen:

 

Thinking that more troops in Iraq would be a good idea in 2004 does not mean that you must continue to think more troops would be a good idea 3 years later. Situations can, you know, change. And they have. For the worse.

 

Thinking that a troop increase in Iraq would be ok if it was tied to a specific plan for withdrawal, or benchmarks, or something else, does not mean that you think a troop increase in Iraq would be great without those benchmarks.

 

That is all.

[Chet Lemon]

Just because someone thinks we don't have enough troops, doesn't mean they're flip-flopping by opposing the surge. 21 or 22k more troops probably isn't enough "to get the job done" or whatever the hell the talking points call for. If the job is to get all Iraqis to be Weekly Standard subscribers and Fox News viewers, we would need more than 100,000 troops.

[Balta1701]

Here's an interesting, 10 year old bit of Obamania that I think shines a worthwhile light on his early years in Chicago.

[jackie hayes]

Something I'd like to say clearly for anyone who's willing to listen:

 

Thinking that more troops in Iraq would be a good idea in 2004 does not mean that you must continue to think more troops would be a good idea 3 years later. Situations can, you know, change. And they have. For the worse.

 

Thinking that a troop increase in Iraq would be ok if it was tied to a specific plan for withdrawal, or benchmarks, or something else, does not mean that you think a troop increase in Iraq would be great without those benchmarks.

 

That is all.

But, how have things changed? Isn't this exactly the scenario that Dems were worried about 3 years ago? Isn't this the scenario that all clear-thinking people were worried about? Where's the new information?

 

My discomfort with the Dems' consensus is that I am not at all convinced that a US pullout will not lead to a bloodbath. And I admit that I don't know if that's worse than the 'slow death' taking place now; but I don't imagine it will be much better, and it will certainly be more horrid.

 

Which is not to say I support the escalation/surge/20kmoretroops proposal, which strikes me as yet another half-ass strategy. Just that I'm disappointed in each direction.

 

Also, Stephen Hadley says that the "the current strategy was not working and it was a prescription for slow failure". But 20k more troops is clearly the answer. Because, clearly, this WH has excelled at fine-tuning.

[Balta1701]

But, how have things changed? Isn't this exactly the scenario that Dems were worried about 3 years ago? Isn't this the scenario that all clear-thinking people were worried about? Where's the new information?

 

My discomfort with the Dems' consensus is that I am not at all convinced that a US pullout will not lead to a bloodbath. And I admit that I don't know if that's worse than the 'slow death' taking place now; but I don't imagine it will be much better, and it will certainly be more horrid.

 

Which is not to say I support the escalation/surge/20kmoretroops proposal, which strikes me as yet another half-ass strategy. Just that I'm disappointed in each direction.

Honestly, the sad thing is I think you'er right...there is simply no strategy that will work. In fact, if you read the summary of the Iraq NIE that was released today, that's exactly what it says; pulling out won't work, and more troops won't work.

 

The thing you ask about, what has changed in 3 years, is the sheer amount of violence. There has been an ungodly increase in the violence in that country since 2004, and there has been a similar increase in the sectarian violence as well. 3 years ago, additional troops could possibly have helped quell the violence as it was increasing.

 

Think of it this way, in 2004, 130-140,000 American troops was not enough to control the country, but more troops might have been a decent suggestion, because the margins were much smaller; upping the troops then might have given the U.S. enough forces to quell that level of violence. But since then, the violence has gone up by a factor of roughly 3-4. An increase of 15% in troop levels might have had an impact against lower levels of violence, but the whole thing has blown up so badly since then that anything less than a full 100-200% increase in American forces simply won't be enough. And that might not even do it.

 

To my eyes, though, I think what I just said was wrong; that was the argument for why increasing troops in 04 might have worked and why it won't work now. Personally, I think the whole adventure was doomed from the moment it was thought up in the late 90's, and being stuck where we are now was the inevitable result of the choices we made. In other words, I don't think that a "Surge" in 04 would have worked either.

[jackie hayes]

Honestly, the sad thing is I think you'er right...there is simply no strategy that will work. In fact, if you read the summary of the Iraq NIE that was released today, that's exactly what it says; pulling out won't work, and more troops won't work.

 

The thing you ask about, what has changed in 3 years, is the sheer amount of violence. There has been an ungodly increase in the violence in that country since 2004, and there has been a similar increase in the sectarian violence as well. 3 years ago, additional troops could possibly have helped quell the violence as it was increasing.

 

Think of it this way, in 2004, 130-140,000 American troops was not enough to control the country, but more troops might have been a decent suggestion, because the margins were much smaller; upping the troops then might have given the U.S. enough forces to quell that level of violence. But since then, the violence has gone up by a factor of roughly 3-4. An increase of 15% in troop levels might have had an impact against lower levels of violence, but the whole thing has blown up so badly since then that anything less than a full 100-200% increase in American forces simply won't be enough. And that might not even do it.

 

To my eyes, though, I think what I just said was wrong; that was the argument for why increasing troops in 04 might have worked and why it won't work now. Personally, I think the whole adventure was doomed from the moment it was thought up in the late 90's, and being stuck where we are now was the inevitable result of the choices we made. In other words, I don't think that a "Surge" in 04 would have worked either.

Certainly the violence has increased, but those were the warnings 3 years ago. At that time, my impression of the Democratic position was that they would never condone a policy that led to utter chaos. But I don't believe a (relatively) fast pullout could avoid that. Even where the militias are loyal, they are unprepared and may be overwhelmed without the air support they receive now.

 

The question becomes, which is the best of the bad options? As much as this war has been a disaster, I'm inclined to think that some 1-2 year withdrawal plan might be the worst plan of all going forward. But that seems to be the new consensus among the Democrats.

[Balta1701]

Certainly the violence has increased, but those were the warnings 3 years ago. At that time, my impression of the Democratic position was that they would never condone a policy that led to utter chaos. But I don't believe a (relatively) fast pullout could avoid that. Even where the militias are loyal, they are unprepared and may be overwhelmed without the air support they receive now.

 

The question becomes, which is the best of the bad options? As much as this war has been a disaster, I'm inclined to think that some 1-2 year withdrawal plan might be the worst plan of all going forward. But that seems to be the new consensus among the Democrats.

Personally, I think that's actually one of the better options, depending on how its done. If you accept that we've made a mess and it's going to collapse into a full civil war anyway, which I do, then the questions are; what can America do to protect itself in that event, and what can we do to mitigate the negative consequences of it on the people.

 

Couple of points on the standard dem position (a slow pullout over 1-2 years, which again I'm not sure I agree with, too slow for my taste). If you go back to the Murtha plan, which has been out there for over a year now, his suggestion was not to completely leave the region, but to back off to Kuwait and form sort of a "Rapid deployment" force. Presumably, given that airpower is America's biggest strength by far, some combination of airpower and air-mobile abilities would be used to protect whatever side we choose to support as the government in the mess that follows our pullout, so even if that plan were followed, the goal would be to do so while still leaving the Iraqi government something to hang onto.

[jackie hayes]

Personally, I think that's actually one of the better options, depending on how its done. If you accept that we've made a mess and it's going to collapse into a full civil war anyway, which I do, then the questions are; what can America do to protect itself in that event, and what can we do to mitigate the negative consequences of it on the people.

 

Couple of points on the standard dem position (a slow pullout over 1-2 years, which again I'm not sure I agree with, too slow for my taste). If you go back to the Murtha plan, which has been out there for over a year now, his suggestion was not to completely leave the region, but to back off to Kuwait and form sort of a "Rapid deployment" force. Presumably, given that airpower is America's biggest strength by far, some combination of airpower and air-mobile abilities would be used to protect whatever side we choose to support as the government in the mess that follows our pullout, so even if that plan were followed, the goal would be to do so while still leaving the Iraqi government something to hang onto.

I'm not sure I agree with the first part. I don't think anyone's really explored other options -- a managed quasi-partition, for example. (Something that allows you to still say that Iraq is one state, even though it's not.) I'm not convinced a "full civil war" is inevitable.

 

As for the second part, I would call that effectively a total withdrawal. We could not react quickly enough from Kuwait; for example, I don't think we could have supported the Iraqis in this last battle. When you're talking about insurgents, Kuwait is too far to provide any meaningful support.

[Balta1701]

 

Best reply i could offer.

[EvilMonkey]

 

Best reply i could offer.

So Al Frankin is now a penguin?

[Balta1701]

Now this is how you hold one hell of a debate on a morning show (Link)

Took us a long time to get in the situation we’re in, and to say that — and somehow assume that in a few months, that things are going to get all better I think is not realistic.

-Sen. John McCain

 

Versus:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You say it’s all in. How long are you going to give it to work?

 

I think in the case of the Iraqi government cooperating and doing what’s necessary, we can know fairly well in a few months.

-Senator John McCain, 47 seconds later.

[Balta1701]

The Senate Republicans have officially begun a filibuster of the watered-down, non-binding resolution opposing the increase of U.S. troops in Iraq. 2 Republicans up for reelection in 08 voted for Cloture; Susan Collins and Norm "about to be beaten by Franken" Coleman. The rest of the Senate Republicans are officially on record now as having supported Mr. Bush's augmentation.

 

Senator McCain missed the vote.

 

Here is the roll call.

 

When this fails, and Iraq is still a mess in November of 08, this is one of those votes to remember. And Hell, even Senator Roberts, who I believe helped draft the compromise language, voted against cloture.

[Mplssoxfan]

The Senate Republicans have officially begun a filibuster of the watered-down, non-binding resolution opposing the increase of U.S. troops in Iraq. 2 Republicans up for reelection in 08 voted for Cloture; Susan Collins and Norm "about to be beaten by Franken" Coleman. The rest of the Senate Republicans are officially on record now as having supported Mr. Bush's augmentation.

 

Senator McCain missed the vote.

 

Here is the roll call.

 

When this fails, and Iraq is still a mess in November of 08, this is one of those votes to remember. And Hell, even Senator Roberts, who I believe helped draft the compromise language, voted against cloture.

 

The only reason that Coleman voted for cloture is that he knew the cloture measure was going to fail. He's been making Kerry look like the Rock of Gibraltar on this issue.