The Difference Between Republicans and Democrats

[SHRED]

---

Outlined here are the reasons I am pissed off at the Democrats.
In this blog lies my disgust.

---


The Difference Between Republicans and Democrats
Thu, 10/18/2007 - 19:57 — dlindorff

The difference between the Republicans in Congress and the Democrats in Congress is striking.

The Democrats are in the majority in the House, and are a narrow majority in the Senate, yet they cannot pass any consequential legislation. The one thing they tout as an accomplishment in nine months of controlling Congress is a pathetic “raise” in the federal minimum wage which, first of all, is so small and belated that in most states it will go unnoticed because it’s lower than most state minimum wage laws, and in any case it’s below what the market is providing, and secondly, they only passed that measure by attaching it to an obscene $120-billion funding bill to continue the Iraq War.

The Republicans, however, in House and Senate, though in the minority in both Houses, have managed, by asserting their unity and collective strength, to block a bill that would somewhat restrict spying on Americans by the National Security Agency, to block a bill putting a deadline on the US occupation of Iraq, and to uphold a presidential veto on a bill expanding subsidized health insurance for children.

Say what you want about Republicans being cold-hearted, child-hating, war-mongering, domestic spying advocates. At least they fight for the crap they believe in!

MORE:
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/?q=node/48


---

[monktonman]

1. but,but...ummm, ahh......ok your right.

But they're not as bad as the pukes!
There! I got you.

[rucky]

2. Think of all the crappy Boosh bills we could've should've blocked.

and conformations

[leftchick]

3. they are a lying traitorous bunch

<snip>

They could stop this war in a heartbeat if they acted like Republicans and just refused to introduce a war funding bill in the House, or if 41 of them would filibuster any war funding bill to death in the Senate. (Or a senator could have just put a "hold" on the war funding bill, as Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) just today put a hold on the NSA spying bill.)

They could stop NSA spying the same way. If they can’t muster the votes to pass a law outlawing warrantless spying by the agency, they can just hold the NSA’s budget hostage until Bush agrees to their terms.

They could get S-CHIP—the child health insurance program—expanded the same way—by holding something else the Republicans want hostage until Republicans agree to override a presidential veto of the program.

Democrats could also put a stop to presidential trashing of the Constitution by voting to initiate an impeachment inquiry by the House Judiciary Committee under John Conyers, giving him full subpoena power to go after the people and the documents his committee needs for its investigation of high crimes and misdemeanors by the administration.

:banghead:

[Bitwit1234]

4. Wait one minute have you read the Constitution

The bills usually pass in the House. Then remember you need 60 votes to bring a bill to the floor of the Senate. Now with only 51 votes available to the Democrats unless they can get the republicans to give in they can't even get an up or down vote. Then when they do get a bill passed bush vetos it. Remember the good bills passed bush vetoed. Remember they didn't have 67 votes to override the veto. And by the way they don't have 2/3 in the house to over ride a veto..we just saw that.

So the republicans who do have the minority but enough members to block the democrats efforts to get bill passed do so and their MISSION IS ACCOMPLISHED the Democrats get blamed.

Tell me...how do you suggest the Democrats pass bills, over ride bush's veto and get these bills in to law. I am sure if you could the Democrats would love just love to get the message.

[rucky]

5. We don't expect to pass much good legislation

but we do expect the bad bills, resolutions and conformations to be voted down, blocked, or never brought up in the first place.