Bush said from the very beginning that he would veto this bill so all
of this time and money spent was a waste and they new it. This is not
news. The headline should read "Congress waste of time and money is
going exactly as planned". It should really be a celebration of them
finaly doing something they set out to do. Wasting time and money is
what politicians are good at.

Bill

In article .com,
Bill wrote:
Bush said from the very beginning that he would veto this bill so all
of this time and money spent was a waste and they new it. This is not
news. The headline should read "Congress waste of time and money is
going exactly as planned". It should really be a celebration of them
finaly doing something they set out to do. Wasting time and money is
what politicians are good at.

They are doing the will of the people who sent them there. Bush is
ignoring what the people want.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article .com,
Bill wrote:

Bush said from the very beginning that he would veto this bill so all
of this time and money spent was a waste and they new it. This is not
news. The headline should read "Congress waste of time and money is
going exactly as planned". It should really be a celebration of them
finaly doing something they set out to do. Wasting time and money is
what politicians are good at.


They are doing the will of the people who sent them there. Bush is
ignoring what the people want.

Then they will put the bill through with a 2/3rd's majority vote..if
that doesn't happen, then it was not the people's will....

In article ,
katy wrote:
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article .com,
Bill wrote:

Bush said from the very beginning that he would veto this bill so all
of this time and money spent was a waste and they new it. This is not
news. The headline should read "Congress waste of time and money is
going exactly as planned". It should really be a celebration of them
finaly doing something they set out to do. Wasting time and money is
what politicians are good at.


They are doing the will of the people who sent them there. Bush is
ignoring what the people want.

Then they will put the bill through with a 2/3rd's majority vote..if
that doesn't happen, then it was not the people's will....

That's pretty naive even for you.


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

In article .com,
Bill wrote:


Bush said from the very beginning that he would veto this bill so all
of this time and money spent was a waste and they new it. This is not
news. The headline should read "Congress waste of time and money is
going exactly as planned". It should really be a celebration of them
finaly doing something they set out to do. Wasting time and money is
what politicians are good at.


They are doing the will of the people who sent them there. Bush is
ignoring what the people want.


Then they will put the bill through with a 2/3rd's majority vote..if
that doesn't happen, then it was not the people's will....


That's pretty naive even for you.


That's the way the Constitution works...if you don't like it, get a
petition going to change it...you'll need quite a few signatures and
quite a few states..will keep you very busy for quite some time...

In article ,
katy wrote:
Then they will put the bill through with a 2/3rd's majority vote..if
that doesn't happen, then it was not the people's will....


That's pretty naive even for you.


That's the way the Constitution works...if you don't like it, get a
petition going to change it...you'll need quite a few signatures and
quite a few states..will keep you very busy for quite some time...

I guess you never heard of lobbies and the money influence they have
on our elected officials. Do a google search on Jack Abramoff.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:

Then they will put the bill through with a 2/3rd's majority vote..if
that doesn't happen, then it was not the people's will....


That's pretty naive even for you.



That's the way the Constitution works...if you don't like it, get a
petition going to change it...you'll need quite a few signatures and
quite a few states..will keep you very busy for quite some time...


I guess you never heard of lobbies and the money influence they have
on our elected officials. Do a google search on Jack Abramoff.

Neveretheless, we have a Constitutional government that spells out how
the people can remedy these ills. If the people are not willing to speak
up and take hold, then it's on their heads, lobbyists or no lobbyists.
And if lobbyists are money buying power, then start supporting the
lobbyist of your choice. Why do you think the NRA is so powerful? Lots
of regular everyday people contribute to them. Why is the AMA and the
NEA (both liberal I may add) so powerful? Becasue doctors and teachers
give their money to that specific cause. Blaming loobyists and money
interests is just another cop out that the average American uses to
justify their apathy and ennui in their own government. The American
people get exactly what they deserve.

In article ,
katy wrote:
I guess you never heard of lobbies and the money influence they have
on our elected officials. Do a google search on Jack Abramoff.

Neveretheless, we have a Constitutional government that spells out how
the people can remedy these ills. If the people are not willing to speak
up and take hold, then it's on their heads, lobbyists or no lobbyists.
And if lobbyists are money buying power, then start supporting the
lobbyist of your choice. Why do you think the NRA is so powerful? Lots
of regular everyday people contribute to them. Why is the AMA and the
NEA (both liberal I may add) so powerful? Becasue doctors and teachers
give their money to that specific cause. Blaming loobyists and money
interests is just another cop out that the average American uses to
justify their apathy and ennui in their own government. The American
people get exactly what they deserve.

Katy, katy... the point is that the lobbiest money is interfering with
the process. Some would claim that it's a first amendement right of
theirs to pump big money to politicians to get their way, but the
effect is to subvert the will of the people.

If you don't think that's true, see how easy or difficult it is for a
private citizen to get a private meeting with the President vs. a big
sponsor. This is true for both parties. The Dems have claimed they're
going to address it, but so far, nothing has happened.


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Katy, katy... the point is that the lobbiest money is interfering with
the process. Some would claim that it's a first amendement right of
theirs to pump big money to politicians to get their way, but the
effect is to subvert the will of the people.

Yes but in a capitalist country people vote two ways. One of those is
with your money. If you don't give your money to the groups with the
lobbyist then they can't do anything about it. They aren't printing
that money out themselves. They get it from the people that are
supporting their cause because the average person can't get a meeting
with the president. They take your money, pool it together and gain
enough political force to do what is in their best interest. If you
are supproting them then it should be in your best interest as well.

Beyond all the retoric about patriotism and freedom, which have zip to do
with Bush's Blunder in Iraq, we have the fact that there was no reason to
invade Iraq to begin with.

An international consort of religious kooks, sometimes called al Qieda,
perp'd the 9/11 assault and alot more. These powerful fanatics, led by
Osama, controlled Afghanistan. Hell bent on world control, they are
everybody's enemy. They are still on the loose largely thanks to blundering
Bush's deversion of resources to Iraq.

Saddam was the strongest bulwark against al Qaeda in the region if only out
of self preservation. Osama had a price on Saddam but I doubt blundering
Bush has collected. Removing Saddam opened the door to al Qaeda in Iraq.
Had the resources - troops, material and, most important, intellegence -
remained directed at the people who attacked the USA on 9/11 then Osama and
his followers would be dead instead of Saddam and there would be no civil
war in Iraq. That they are not, but instead are operating in Iraq and world
wide, is a direct consequence of Bush's blunder.

Had Roosevelt been as idiotic as "W" when Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor he
would have invaded Canada or the USSR in retaliation! Worse, like McNamara
in Vietnam and Rummy in Iraq, he'd have micromanaged a stunning military
victory into an awful defeat.