Inglis Sells Out

Bob Inglis voted his conscience, please at least give him credit for that. Unlike Hillary and others of her ilk, at least Inglis is doing what he thinks is RIGHT for his district.

It was stupid to go into Iraq to start and it is even more stupid to keeping sending more troops (can anyone spell Verdun?) into a lost cause! For the advantage of more troops in Iraq please see "tar baby".

I missed Vietman by 2 months. I was in Army ROTC at Clemson at the time (branched Infantry) and would have gone there if we had not gotten out. Iraq is like Vietnam in that the politicians sending in the troops have done so much amateurish meddling that any possibility of "Victory" (if that can even be defined) is long gone.

We need to cut and run from Iraq, lose the rhertoric on Iran and bring our troops home.

All we have accomplished is created a billion Moslems that hate America and a million suicide bombers. The longer we stay the more damage we do.

This is what Bob Inglis sees and why he voted as such.

Pappy's quote:

I guess we need to agree to disagree about everything but one.
I enlisted out of high school in '45 and went overseas with a heavy weapons unit. I know how the guys felt.
So please don’t join those political opportunists that equate disagreement about this war with disloyalty nor with lack of support for the troops.

I guess my arguments are about the disagreements so publicly stated giving comfort to the ones our guys are fighting. Thats what I find apalling about this resolution. You don't? Knowing that the resolution gives comfort to the ones our guys are fighting?

- ed evans

Ed--

No, I don’t think the enemy cares one way or the other about what we say. They are fighting for their cause or mission whatever that may be.

Isn’t the result of the past election even more indicative of how this nation feels about continuing the conflict ? Are you suggesting that we shouldn’t have elections because the results may give comfort to the enemy ?

Freedom to express ourselves is perhaps the greatest freedom we have. Are we to suspend that freedom in times of conflict because it might give comfort to the enemy ?

Should we hide the results of polls because they show that 2/3 of our population wants our troops home and that might give comfort to the enemy ?

To get down to it, are you suggesting censorship of opinion if we disagree with the President’s policies because it might give comfort to the enemy ?


“…and so it goes.” KV

Bob Inglis voted his conscience, please at least give him credit for that. Unlike Hillary and others of her ilk, at least Inglis is doing what he thinks is RIGHT for his district.

Credit given

Pappy's quote:

I guess we need to agree to disagree about everything but one.
I enlisted out of high school in '45 and went overseas with a heavy weapons unit. I know how the guys felt.
So please don’t join those political opportunists that equate disagreement about this war with disloyalty nor with lack of support for the troops.

I guess my arguments are about the disagreements so publicly stated giving comfort to the ones our guys are fighting. Thats what I find apalling about this resolution. You don't? Knowing that the resolution gives comfort to the ones our guys are fighting?

- ed evans

Ed--

No, I don’t think the enemy cares one way or the other about what we say. They are fighting for their cause or mission whatever that may be.

Isn’t the result of the past election even more indicative of how this nation feels about continuing the conflict ? Are you suggesting that we shouldn’t have elections because the results may give comfort to the enemy ?

Freedom to express ourselves is perhaps the greatest freedom we have. Are we to suspend that freedom in times of conflict because it might give comfort to the enemy ?

Should we hide the results of polls because they show that 2/3 of our population wants our troops home and that might give comfort to the enemy ?

To get down to it, are you suggesting censorship of opinion if we disagree with the President’s policies because it might give comfort to the enemy ?


“…and so it goes.” KV

- PAPPY

Not saying any such stuff about censorship Pappy. Disagree all you want but do it here. The meaningless resolution has meaning -- for the terrorist are the only ones that I can see benefitting from it.

My problem is that the criticism coming from powerful folks that voted for the conflict now wiggling to get elected or curry favor. Is it so neccessary to do it in such a fashion that gives comfort to the enemy? There comes a time when all of us miss a good opportunity to shut up -- and I'm guilty too. But I usually do not get the national and international attention the congress does.

I had no problem with the Dixie Chicks until I learned they said what they did to a foreign audence. I think it was called pandering by a well known country singer.

And the past election: The Dems took both houses. But did the margins of victory constitute a tidal shift?

And one last comment and I'll shut up. I only wish that the speaking taking place could somehow stay within our own country. You know, like a family squabble: Keep it indoors.

Pappy's quote:

I guess we need to agree to disagree about everything but one.
I enlisted out of high school in '45 and went overseas with a heavy weapons unit. I know how the guys felt.
So please don’t join those political opportunists that equate disagreement about this war with disloyalty nor with lack of support for the troops.

I guess my arguments are about the disagreements so publicly stated giving comfort to the ones our guys are fighting. Thats what I find apalling about this resolution. You don't? Knowing that the resolution gives comfort to the ones our guys are fighting?

- ed evans

Ed--

No, I don’t think the enemy cares one way or the other about what we say. They are fighting for their cause or mission whatever that may be.

Isn’t the result of the past election even more indicative of how this nation feels about continuing the conflict ? Are you suggesting that we shouldn’t have elections because the results may give comfort to the enemy ?

Freedom to express ourselves is perhaps the greatest freedom we have. Are we to suspend that freedom in times of conflict because it might give comfort to the enemy ?

Should we hide the results of polls because they show that 2/3 of our population wants our troops home and that might give comfort to the enemy ?

To get down to it, are you suggesting censorship of opinion if we disagree with the President’s policies because it might give comfort to the enemy ?


“…and so it goes.” KV

- PAPPY

Not saying any such stuff about censorship Pappy. Disagree all you want but do it here. The meaningless resolution has meaning -- for the terrorist are the only ones that I can see benefitting from it.

My problem is that the criticism coming from powerful folks that voted for the conflict now wiggling to get elected or curry favor. Is it so neccessary to do it in such a fashion that gives comfort to the enemy? There comes a time when all of us miss a good opportunity to shut up -- and I'm guilty too. But I usually do not get the national and international attention the congress does.

I had no problem with the Dixie Chicks until I learned they said what they did to a foreign audence. I think it was called pandering by a well known country singer.

And the past election: The Dems took both houses. But did the margins of victory constitute a tidal shift?

- ed evans

Ed,

I'm confused. Are you saying that people like you and I can express our opinions but the people we elcted to represent us shouldn't ?

That's why we elected them, to speak for us. We should not be ashamed of them letting the world know how the majority of the country's population feels about the war.

In this electronic age, every publicly expressed opinion may instantly be a global one. It didn't take a vote on the resolution for the enemy to know how we felt, they knew well before any resolution.

Finally, the vote both in the House and the Senate on the resolution was a resounding 62% in favor.
With only 38% of the members of the Legislative branch of our government opposed, I would think one could call that a tidal shift.


"...and so it goes." KV

Pappy: Just saying I wish like the devil they would not say it for the reason stated earlier. Their comments benefit the enemy.

I'm not ashamed: I just do not like it for the impact it has overseas -- not here.

And the tidal shift could be 99%. I think I'd still feel the same way.

Are you saying their voicing the meaningless resolution is more important than the effects on the morale overseas?

There was absolutely no tidal shift in American thought. The resolution passed the House but did not pass the Senate.

Also, I don't want my elected officials voting based on the latest poll numbers. If they were going to do that why not have a direct democracy where the people vote on every bill coming up?

I want my elected officials on every level to take input from a variety of sources including public opinion and vote what they think is in the best interest of their constituents. That's the basis of the republican form of government which we live under.

Does nobody else think it's courageous of the President and some Senators like John McCain and Lindsey Graham to support an unpopular plan because they think it's the best option available. Seems to me it would be a lot easier and politically wiser for them to vote the other way, but they are taking the risk to stand up for what they think is right and I respect that.

Are you saying their voicing the meaningless resolution is more important than the effects on the morale overseas?

- ed evans

Ed,

I never said that and if you read my comments you would know that.

"...and so it goes." KV

There was absolutely no tidal shift in American thought. The resolution passed the House but did not pass the Senate.

Also, I don't want my elected officials voting based on the latest poll numbers. If they were going to do that why not have a direct democracy where the people vote on every bill coming up?

I want my elected officials on every level to take input from a variety of sources including public opinion and vote what they think is in the best interest of their constituents. That's the basis of the republican form of government which we live under.

Does nobody else think it's courageous of the President and some Senators like John McCain and Lindsey Graham to support an unpopular plan because they think it's the best option available. Seems to me it would be a lot easier and politically wiser for them to vote the other way, but they are taking the risk to stand up for what they think is right and I respect that.

- Lee Cole

LeeCole--

62% of the Senate voted for the resolution. That may not be a tsunami but it is a very large wave.

This was not a 'bill'. It was a resolution expressing their beliefs. After taking input from a variety of sources including public opinion they voted what they thought was in the best interest of their constituents.

I too respect McCain and Graham for expressing and standing up for their minority beliefs. That's the American way as I have tried to explain to Ed. In America everyone has a right, no, an obligation to express their opinion.


"...and so it goes." KV

Are you saying their voicing the meaningless resolution is more important than the effects on the morale overseas?

- ed evans

Ed,

I never said that and if you read my comments you would know that.

"...and so it goes." KV

- PAPPY

Glad you cleared that up, because I was thinking that what you were getting at. Everybody here has the right to free speech. Everyone knows it. And I'm only expressing my opinion that the resolution doesn't benefit our guys and gals overseas but gives comfort to the enemy. Those last five words of the sentence before this one.

PAPPY, I have all the respect in the world for you, my friend, but let's quit twisting things here, okay?

What the SENATE voted on was whether to SHUT OFF DEBATE AND VOTE ON A SINGLE DEMOCRATIC-SPONSORED RESOLUTION that tries to diminish the Commander in Chief's ability to be Commander in Chief. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to shut off debate and vote. It got 56 votes, including all but two of the Democrats, and even picked up a few straggler Republicans. Now, 56 of 100 is NOT 62 percent of the Senate membership (it's 56 percent, unless we're doing math in a parallel universe here.) Of course, I'm not a former accountant, so maybe 56 IS 62 percent of 100, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.

Ironically, after that CLOTURE VOTE (cloture, remember, means TO SHUT OFF DEBATE) failed to get the required 60 votes, the DEMOCRATS in the Senate came out and accused the REPUBLICANS of refusing to debate the Iraq War.

That takes a lot of nerve, my friend, for them to say black is white and white is black. The Democrats pushed a resolution to SHUT OFF DEBATE. It FAILED, despite almost unanimous support of the majority party in the SENATE, yet they accused the REPUBLICANS of not wanting to debate the issue. That's audacity.

How do they keep getting by with it? Easy. Most of the mainstream media reported that the REPUBLICANS refused to allow debate on the Iraq resolution. They get by with it because they know the majority of the people in this country aren't paying attention, don't understand, don't care, are just basically too ignorant to understand that if a Senator votes FOR CLOTURE, he's voting to SHUT OFF THE DEBATE and if he votes AGAINST CLOTURE, he's voting to continue debate.

PAPPY, I'm hoping your last post came about simply because you're NOT PAYING ATTENTION. If it's any other of the other three reasons, please don't tell me. We don't want to undermine that RESPECT thing, now do we?

PAPPY, I have all the respect in the world for you, my friend, but let's quit twisting things here, okay?

What the SENATE voted on was whether to SHUT OFF DEBATE AND VOTE ON A SINGLE DEMOCRATIC-SPONSORED RESOLUTION that tries to diminish the Commander in Chief's ability to be Commander in Chief. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to shut off debate and vote. It got 56 votes, including all but two of the Democrats, and even picked up a few straggler Republicans. Now, 56 of 100 is NOT 62 percent of the Senate membership (it's 56 percent, unless we're doing math in a parallel universe here.) Of course, I'm not a former accountant, so maybe 56 IS 62 percent of 100, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.

Ironically, after that CLOTURE VOTE (cloture, remember, means TO SHUT OFF DEBATE) failed to get the required 60 votes, the DEMOCRATS in the Senate came out and accused the REPUBLICANS of refusing to debate the Iraq War.

That takes a lot of nerve, my friend, for them to say black is white and white is black. The Democrats pushed a resolution to SHUT OFF DEBATE. It FAILED, despite almost unanimous support of the majority party in the SENATE, yet they accused the REPUBLICANS of not wanting to debate the issue. That's audacity.

How do they keep getting by with it? Easy. Most of the mainstream media reported that the REPUBLICANS refused to allow debate on the Iraq resolution. They get by with it because they know the majority of the people in this country aren't paying attention, don't understand, don't care, are just basically too ignorant to understand that if a Senator votes FOR CLOTURE, he's voting to SHUT OFF THE DEBATE and if he votes AGAINST CLOTURE, he's voting to continue debate.

PAPPY, I'm hoping your last post came about simply because you're NOT PAYING ATTENTION. If it's any other of the other three reasons, please don't tell me. We don't want to undermine that RESPECT thing, now do we?

- JDTippett

Most respected interlocutor--

You are right, I did fudge the statistic. I should have said 62.22222etc%, but inadvertantly rounded it off.

Everything I read said only 90 Senators voted, not 100, therefore 56 out of 90 is about 62%.

As for cloture (thought that had something to do with stopping bleeding) it was to stop debate so that a vote could be taken. The gimmick is that if debate was allowed to continue then a Republican filibuster would prevent a vote on the Iraq resolution forever.

So it wasn't to stop debate, it was to stop a filibuster.

Ironically, The prior Republican majority leader wanted to make filibusters unconstitutional ( the nuclear option).

I guess this illustrates that it isn't always the majority that rules.


"...and so it goes." KV

It doesn't matter how many voted, PAPPY. A cloture vote required 60 votes, or 60 percent of the U.S. Senators who are eligible to vote. It got 56 votes.

And that 60-vote requirement is not something the Republicans in the Senate slipped into the rules to aggravate Democrats. It's been there for awhile.

The majority DOES rule, PAPPY, except that the Senate has rules that some consider "acrane" that are designed to prevent what everybody wants to call the "tyranny of the majority." It's the same thing the Senate used to block some of President Bush's court nominees.

If given an up-or-down vote in the four of the past six years, almost every single one of Bush's nominees would have been confirmed. As it is, at leasts seven that I can recall, and probably more, were stopped by filibusters and other Senate shenanigans.

Don't knock the rules that keep the majority from running all over the majority, PAPPY. It has served to prevent the left wing of the Democrat Party from being overrun by the Republican Party, and it has kept Republican minorities from being steamrolled by a Democrat majority.

The Democrats hold a slim majority in the Senate right now - 51 votes - but the day will come when that majority is again in the hands of the Republicans. Push for the elimination of the 60-vote cloture rule and "simple majoirty rule" at your own peril. But the Founding Fathers actually ENVISIONED the Senate as the place where things passed by the House of Representatives in the heat of the moment would have time to cool down for a closer look. That's all that happened here, no matter how you try to spin it for purely partisan advantage.

It doesn't matter how many voted, PAPPY. A cloture vote required 60 votes, or 60 percent of the U.S. Senators who are eligible to vote. It got 56 votes.

And that 60-vote requirement is not something the Republicans in the Senate slipped into the rules to aggravate Democrats. It's been there for awhile.

The majority DOES rule, PAPPY, except that the Senate has rules that some consider "acrane" that are designed to prevent what everybody wants to call the "tyranny of the majority." It's the same thing the Senate used to block some of President Bush's court nominees.

If given an up-or-down vote in the four of the past six years, almost every single one of Bush's nominees would have been confirmed. As it is, at leasts seven that I can recall, and probably more, were stopped by filibusters and other Senate shenanigans.

Don't knock the rules that keep the majority from running all over the majority, PAPPY. It has served to prevent the left wing of the Democrat Party from being overrun by the Republican Party, and it has kept Republican minorities from being steamrolled by a Democrat majority.

The Democrats hold a slim majority in the Senate right now - 51 votes - but the day will come when that majority is again in the hands of the Republicans. Push for the elimination of the 60-vote cloture rule and "simple majoirty rule" at your own peril. But the Founding Fathers actually ENVISIONED the Senate as the place where things passed by the House of Representatives in the heat of the moment would have time to cool down for a closer look. That's all that happened here, no matter how you try to spin it for purely partisan advantage.

- JDTippett

JD--

Once again we find agreement, even though we enter by different doors. You are absolutely correct that the Senate is a refuge for minority rights. I believe the restraints of cloture and filibuster are important tools in this Democracy of ours.

The only effort to eliminate them was undertaken by a Republican Doctor that made a diagnosis by watching 2 year old movies of the patient. To be fair, the effort was squelched by the leadership of a Republican hero.


“…and so it goes.” KV

Somehow this thing got turned into a political science lesson, which I really appreciated. I really learned a couple of things that I did not know before. What I do know is that this phoney vote thing did not pass in the senate and only passed in house by a slim majority. I also know that technically there is no majority in the senate, there are 49 d's 49 r's and 2 i's , just because the 2 i's will probably vote most of the time with the d's doesn't mean that they can run rough shod over the r's anymore than if the r's were in the same place with the d's.
As far as the polls are concerned when asked about the war I have never seen one where it asks a question you can give a straight up and down answer to. It is usually something like do you support the Pres. (answer some of the time) but only y or n do you support the war ( not with DC sticking their noses in telling the sargents over there who and what can be hit) so I would have to say n. However if the guys over there were left to fight as only a sargent or the fighting people over there know how then my answer would be a y so are polls really any good? Polls are like statistics you can pretty well manipulate them to give you the answers you want. As for more than one or two tours, I feel bad, but when my Dad enlisted from the time he left the states until he returned it was 3 years and 7 months and there was no chance of him coming home for a visit with his loved ones. Of course that is when Americans were proud to be americans and not ashamed of all the good things we have accomplished in this country. I do thank a veteran everytime I see one for all of the freedoms we have. I could say more but this is a little long and it would start another whole thing. I think maybe i was born in the wrong era.

Somehow this thing got turned into a political science lesson, which I really appreciated. I really learned a couple of things that I did not know before. What I do know is that this phoney vote thing did not pass in the senate and only passed in house by a slim majority. I also know that technically there is no majority in the senate, there are 49 d's 49 r's and 2 i's , just because the 2 i's will probably vote most of the time with the d's doesn't mean that they can run rough shod over the r's anymore than if the r's were in the same place with the d's.
As far as the polls are concerned when asked about the war I have never seen one where it asks a question you can give a straight up and down answer to. It is usually something like do you support the Pres. (answer some of the time) but only y or n do you support the war ( not with DC sticking their noses in telling the sargents over there who and what can be hit) so I would have to say n. However if the guys over there were left to fight as only a sargent or the fighting people over there know how then my answer would be a y so are polls really any good? Polls are like statistics you can pretty well manipulate them to give you the answers you want. As for more than one or two tours, I feel bad, but when my Dad enlisted from the time he left the states until he returned it was 3 years and 7 months and there was no chance of him coming home for a visit with his loved ones. Of course that is when Americans were proud to be americans and not ashamed of all the good things we have accomplished in this country. I do thank a veteran everytime I see one for all of the freedoms we have. I could say more but this is a little long and it would start another whole thing. I think maybe i was born in the wrong era.

- noeline

noline--

You make me feel really old since your Dad and I were probably about the same age.

But then the entire country was involved in sacrificing with high taxes and rationing at home.

We were also protecting our country from a truly real axis of evil ( Germany, Japan and Italy ).

Now we are trying to protect someone else's country and they don't want us there.

One correction, the House vote was 62% for the resolution and 38% opposed. I think that is more than a slim margin.

"...and so it goes." KV

Sorry Pappy didn't mean to make you feel old honest. What I do know is that when Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor. We went to war with Germany first. This is kind of the same thing the idiots from Afghanastan (sp sorry) they got refuge in Iraq and in Iran and in Saudi Arabia and probably everyother coutry over there so why don't we settle the whole thing and nuke the whole region we can create a disney world over and give the world a new amusement and get rid of all the terriost at one time. In reality though these people over there really do want to kill us they have made no bones about it and given half a chance, and we are by all of this bickering) they will. Did this country learn nothing from Viet Nam. Do Not forget that Siagon did not fall until after a truce had been signed and we were in the process of already drawing down our troops over there. Then and only then did NV attack and kill millions of people. Do you really think the same thing would not happen again we leave and boom more than 3,000 people will die in this country and in others the nuts have better weapons now and absolutely no impluse control.

Sorry Pappy didn't mean to make you feel old honest. What I do know is that when Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor. We went to war with Germany first. This is kind of the same thing the idiots from Afghanastan (sp sorry) they got refuge in Iraq and in Iran and in Saudi Arabia and probably everyother coutry over there so why don't we settle the whole thing and nuke the whole region we can create a disney world over and give the world a new amusement and get rid of all the terriost at one time. In reality though these people over there really do want to kill us they have made no bones about it and given half a chance, and we are by all of this bickering) they will. Did this country learn nothing from Viet Nam. Do Not forget that Siagon did not fall until after a truce had been signed and we were in the process of already drawing down our troops over there. Then and only then did NV attack and kill millions of people. Do you really think the same thing would not happen again we leave and boom more than 3,000 people will die in this country and in others the nuts have better weapons now and absolutely no impluse control.