The Conservative Cave

Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: franksolich on October 07, 2009, 03:12:19 PM

Title: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: franksolich on October 07, 2009, 03:12:19 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6715700

Oh my.

Quote
Orwellian_Ghost  (1000+ posts)        Wed Oct-07-09 08:24 AM
Original message
 
US Senate Votes 93-7 For WAR MACHINE $$$$- WHERE'S OUR HEALTHCARE MONEY? 

On Tuesday, the US Senate voted by a margin of 93-7 in favor of the 2010 Defense Appropriation bill, which included another $128 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through September 2010.

Only one of the seven "Nay" votes (Sen. Feingold) was an antiwar vote.

After the House and Senate bills are reconciled, each House will have one more opportunity to vote on this bill. It seems likely that this will occur next week.

For more information:

http://senatus.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/senators-pass-2...

Quote
rurallib  (1000+ posts)        Wed Oct-07-09 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
 
1. Wouldn't it be wonderful if things were reversed

Senate passes health care bill on a 93-7 vote. Pentagon bill mired in committee.

Quote
joeycola (838 posts)      Wed Oct-07-09 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
 
2. Dreams are wonderful.

Quote
earthside (1000+ posts)     Wed Oct-07-09 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
 
3. Revenue Neutral! Revenue Neutral!

Oh, for everything except the war machine ... sorry.

Quote
postulater (1000+ posts)        Wed Oct-07-09 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
 
4. Yay Feingold!

The sparkling husband primitive:

Quote
Stinky The Clown  (1000+ posts)        Wed Oct-07-09 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
 
5. My second K&R of the day for one of your posts.

Quote
msongs  (1000+ posts)      Wed Oct-07-09 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
 
6. the Bush regime continues.......

Quote
spanone  (1000+ posts)      Wed Oct-07-09 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
 
7. got to feed the killing machine....there is always money for death

Hmmm.  You mean like abortion?

Quote
blindpig (1000+ posts)        Wed Oct-07-09 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
 
8. What more do ya need to know?
 
The priorities of this administration, this congress, like those of the past, are quite clear.

The skidmarked underwear primitive:

Quote
Skidmore  (1000+ posts)        Wed Oct-07-09 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
 
9. It's been sent to support the only viable employment program left--miliatary service.

Quote
gopiscrap  (318 posts)        Wed Oct-07-09 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
 
10. Who were the seven who voted no?

I'd like to call to thank them!!!

The goopy crap primitive doesn't know what it just got into.

Quote
Orwellian_Ghost  (1000+ posts)        Wed Oct-07-09 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #10
 
11. Here ya' go 

NAYs ---7

Barrasso (R-WY)
Coburn (R-OK)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (R-SC)
McCain (R-AZ)

Oh my.  What are the primitives to do?
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: The Village Idiot on October 07, 2009, 03:18:02 PM
I think the Senate added the Hate Crimes Bill or something to it. Or are planning to.
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: GOBUCKS on October 07, 2009, 03:27:11 PM
Quote
The goopy crap primitive doesn't know what it just got into.

I think he's a troll who knew the answer before he asked the question.
Hilarious - he shut the thread down instantly!
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: JohnnyReb on October 07, 2009, 04:34:25 PM
OK I just got here....splain to me why my 2 senators voted nay?

If it's because the Dimrats were voting "FOR" a hate crime bill attached to it, then I'm OK with their nay vote.
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: miskie on October 07, 2009, 04:40:17 PM
Quote from: Orwellian_Ghost
Orwellian_Ghost  (1000+ posts)        Wed Oct-07-09 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #10
 
11. Here ya' go

NAYs ---7

Barrasso (R-WY)
Coburn (R-OK)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (R-SC)
McCain (R-AZ)

My oh my - could a more solid kick in the naughty parts have been delivered intentionally ? I don't think so. I also noticed that this post seems to have doused the bonfire.
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: IassaFTots on October 07, 2009, 04:46:32 PM
Golly.  I sure needed that today.  Republicans from Wyoming AND South Carolina?  Gee whiz.  Oh the IRONY!

 :rotf:
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: TheSarge on October 07, 2009, 04:49:34 PM
Quote
Skidmore  (1000+ posts)        Wed Oct-07-09 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
 
9. It's been sent to support the only viable employment program left--miliatary service.

 :bird: dirtbag.


I would have NO problem pulling any kind of protection the military provides for you in an effing heartbeat.
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: formerlurker on October 07, 2009, 04:56:48 PM
Quote
Barrasso (R-WY)
Coburn (R-OK)
DeMint (R-SC)

Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (R-SC)
McCain (R-AZ)

WTF is this all about?
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: TheSarge on October 07, 2009, 04:58:27 PM
WTF is this all about?

The only thing I can think of is that there was some kind of language that was put in there that they objected to.

Either that or their true colors are coming out and they just don't give a flying f*ck anymore about being a Republican.
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on October 07, 2009, 05:19:24 PM
I'm not sure if it was stuff added to it that didn't relate to defense, there was also a lot of defense spending added to it that DOD didn't ask for (Basically corporate/union welfare), like 10 more C-17s than the Air Force wanted, which may have affected some of those votes.
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: franksolich on October 07, 2009, 05:24:44 PM
The only thing I can think of is that there was some kind of language that was put in there that they objected to.

Either that or their true colors are coming out and they just don't give a flying f*ck anymore about being a Republican.

Oh now, the senator from Oklahoma and the two senators from Wyoming are true blue conservative Republicans.

I'm suspecting it has something to do with Democrat pork in it, but since the bill was going to pass anyway, they voted against it because of the pork.  If it were closer, I have no doubt they would've voted for it.

Just the usual standard politics.
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: Alpha Mare on October 07, 2009, 05:28:32 PM
The only thing I can think of is that there was some kind of language that was put in there that they objected to.

Either that or their true colors are coming out and they just don't give a flying f*ck anymore about being a Republican.
Quote
Inclusion of hate crimes legislation in the bill presents problems getting the final measure through Congress.

If Congress clears the measure, there is a risk President Barack Obama might veto the legislation because negotiators included a provision, opposed by the administration, authorizing the purpose of an alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate’s chief Republican negotiator on the bill, said many Republican participants in the negotiations are refusing to sign the final conference report because of the hate crimes legislation, although he signed the report because he believes the bill includes important provisions to support troops and their families and improvements in national security.

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act included in the bill prohibits crimes “based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person,” according to a Senate Armed Services Committee summary. It also provides federal support for the criminal investigation and prosecution by state and local law enforcement. To give the hate crimes provisions military relevance, it would prohibit attacks on U.S. service members based on the fact they are in the military.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_defenseauthorization_100709w/#


Quote
The bill, however, would add $1.7 billion for an extra destroyer the Defense Department did not request and $2.5 billion for 10 C-17 cargo planes it did not want, at the behest of lawmakers representing the states where those items would be built.
http://reason.com/blog/2009/09/29/tasty-pork-in-the-defense-bill
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: Crazy Horse on October 07, 2009, 05:34:20 PM
Quote
Sen. John McCain of Arizona, ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate’s chief Republican negotiator on the bill, said many Republican participants in the negotiations are refusing to sign the final conference report because of the hate crimes legislation, although he signed the report because he believes the bill includes important provisions to support troops and their families and improvements in national security.

This is why McCain would have been worse for the country
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: JohnnyReb on October 07, 2009, 05:42:06 PM
"The Hate Crimes Prevention Act included in the bill prohibits crimes “based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person,” according to a Senate Armed Services Committee summary. It also provides federal support for the criminal investigation and prosecution by state and local law enforcement."

So, from now on, if you thump a drunk in a bar somewhere....it's a federal case.
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: The Village Idiot on October 07, 2009, 06:04:18 PM
"The Hate Crimes Prevention Act included in the bill prohibits crimes “based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person,” according to a Senate Armed Services Committee summary. It also provides federal support for the criminal investigation and prosecution by state and local law enforcement."

So, from now on, if you thump a drunk in a bar somewhere....it's a federal case.

percieved?? by the assailant or victim?
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: Traveshamockery on October 07, 2009, 08:12:42 PM
Golly.  I sure needed that today.  Republicans from Wyoming AND South Carolina?  Gee whiz.  Oh the IRONY!

 :rotf:


The ironicness is almost too much! 

 :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: IassaFTots on October 07, 2009, 08:17:31 PM

The ironicness is almost too much! 

 :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

I  :heart: this ironicness.
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on October 07, 2009, 09:05:08 PM
percieved?? by the assailant or victim?

Neither.  By Eric Holder, I would guess.
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: The Village Idiot on October 07, 2009, 09:33:10 PM
Neither.  By Eric Holder, I would guess.
:banghead:
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: AllosaursRus on October 08, 2009, 01:06:10 AM
Damn! Congress critters would have to look up to see the soles of my shoes! Which BTW they deserve after having been tread upon severely!

Heaven forbid we just take care of our boys, and spend only what they need, without throwing a bunch of gobbledygook, feel good bribery, for some left wing group who don't deserve it, alongside it!

These clowns wouldn't know how to legislate, if they had to forego looking for another stinkin' vote from some minority who thinks they have been wronged!

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: ColonialMarine0431 on October 08, 2009, 01:37:43 AM
"The Hate Crimes Prevention Act included in the bill prohibits crimes “based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person,” according to a Senate Armed Services Committee summary. It also provides federal support for the criminal investigation and prosecution by state and local law enforcement."

So, from now on, if you thump a drunk in a bar somewhere....it's a federal case.

You can send an email to your representatives urging them to take this crap out. Go to AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION (http://www3.capwiz.com/afanet/issues/?style=D), click on 
Tell Congress to vote “No!” on “thought crimes” bill  and follow the instructions. I suggest subscribing to their email alerts as well.
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: thundley4 on October 08, 2009, 03:03:48 AM
Quote
"The Hate Crimes Prevention Act included in the bill prohibits crimes “based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person,” according to a Senate Armed Services Committee summary. It also provides federal support for the criminal investigation and prosecution by state and local law enforcement."

No, it doesn't prohibit these types of crimes. It only adds further penalties to something that was already a crime. Whose perception are these increased penalties based on? The victim, the prosecutor, Holder and his minions?

Two guys get into a fight, and it turns out the one getting "his" ass kicked is a gay-trans gendered-Albino - Joooooo.  Then I guess the perp is in for some serious charges.
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: The Village Idiot on October 08, 2009, 08:29:21 AM
You can send an email to your representatives urging them to take this crap out. Go to AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION (http://www3.capwiz.com/afanet/issues/?style=D), click on 
Tell Congress to vote “No!” on “thought crimes” bill  and follow the instructions. I suggest subscribing to their email alerts as well.


Take it out? right. I don't even think they let a GOPer in the room during the Conference on the Stimulus bill. I would not doubt they'd lock them out on this too.
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: dutch508 on October 08, 2009, 10:07:02 AM
sent to all three SEN in Nebraska.
What is cool is they do give you a from letter body, however it is fully editable to whatever you want to put in there.

I used just a few sentences out of the form and wrote what I wanted for the rest.

Three minutes- three e-mails.

 :tongue:
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: The Village Idiot on October 08, 2009, 11:54:58 AM
sent to all three SEN in Nebraska.


Nebraska has 3 Senators??
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: franksolich on October 08, 2009, 12:05:35 PM
Nebraska has 3 Senators??

I suspect my fellow Nebraskan dutch508 meant to both U.S. Senators and his congressman from Nebraska.

Excresence happens.
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: The Village Idiot on October 08, 2009, 12:10:49 PM
I suspect my fellow Nebraskan dutch508 meant to both U.S. Senators and his congressman from Nebraska.

Excresence happens.

I figured that, I'm just trying to get a laugh
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on October 08, 2009, 12:26:59 PM
I figured that, I'm just trying to get a laugh

It worked for me!

 :-)
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: JohnnyReb on October 08, 2009, 05:08:00 PM
Nebraska has 3 Senators??

One has a split personality.
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: dutch508 on October 08, 2009, 05:29:33 PM
We also have a unicam.


as opposed to a unicorn, I guess...
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: Chris on October 08, 2009, 05:31:10 PM
One has a split personality.

That's what you get for hanging around Dr. Phil.
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: dutch508 on October 08, 2009, 05:31:29 PM
I got a reply from SEN Mike Johanns:

Dear Dutch,

Thank you for contacting my office with your concerns and views. I will be sending you a written letter of response.

etc etc etc...
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: djones520 on October 09, 2009, 05:49:39 PM
The only thing I can think of is that there was some kind of language that was put in there that they objected to.

Either that or their true colors are coming out and they just don't give a flying f*ck anymore about being a Republican.

It was the Hate Crimes bill that they shoved in there, knowing that it won't get voted down.  Rep. Hoekstra voted against this bill cause of that, and I have 0 reason to doubt his loyalty to ensuring he supports the military.

And CH, can you explain how voting against sneaking shit into bills like Defense is worse then Obama?  I'd love to hear the reasoning.
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: thundley4 on October 09, 2009, 06:21:40 PM
It was the Hate Crimes bill that they shoved in there, knowing that it won't get voted down.  Rep. Hoekstra voted against this bill cause of that, and I have 0 reason to doubt his loyalty to ensuring he supports the military.

And CH, can you explain how voting against sneaking shit into bills like Defense is worse then Obama?  I'd love to hear the reasoning.

It might also have to do with some of the things omitted (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,34917.msg369042.html#new) from the bill.


Quote
ColonialMarine0431
In short, if you get wounded before 20 years service and become classified a disabled veteran you should receive full military retired pay and veterans’ disability compensation concurrently. The 2010 defense authorization bill approved Thursday by the House of Representatives says "NO".

Thank you Dear Leader.

Quote
Legion slams Congress on concurrent receipt

By Rick Maze - Staff writer

Posted : Friday Oct 9, 2009 10:12:49 EDT
   
The nation’s largest veterans organization is “furious” over the omission from the final 2010 defense authorization bill of promised increases in retired pay for people whose disabilities cut short their military careers.

Clarence Hill, national commander of the 2.5-million-member American Legion, said in a statement Friday that the compromise version of the 2010 defense authorization bill approved Thursday by the House of Representatives “should be named the Unfinished Business Act of 2009.”

Hill’s ire stems from the fact that the final bill does not include a provision that would extend the right to concurrently receive full military retired pay and veterans’ disability compensation to people who received military disability retirement short of 20 years of service, sometimes known as “Chapter 61” retirees for the section of the U.S. Code that addresses their retirement status.

Also missing from the final bill is a provision allowing survivors to concurrently receive full military and veterans’ survivor benefits.
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: Crazy Horse on October 09, 2009, 08:49:11 PM

And CH, can you explain how voting against sneaking shit into bills like Defense is worse then Obama?  I'd love to hear the reasoning.

If you would have read my post with the quote, you would understand..................it was a thing about McCain, not about the defense bill...............I never said anything about sneaking shit in, where you got that from is beyond me. This vote and McCains' response is what showed he would;ve been worse than Obama

Go back and read the quote child................I take the Defense budget very serious as it pays my bills, and yours
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: GOBUCKS on October 09, 2009, 09:38:10 PM
Anyone who thinks ANY Republican would be worse for the country than a muslim socialist has
a screw loose somewhere. Incredible DUmmitude.
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: Crazy Horse on October 09, 2009, 09:49:06 PM
Anyone who thinks ANY Republican would be worse for the country than a muslim socialist has
a screw loose somewhere. Incredible DUmmitude.

Sorry............but McCains need to be bipartisan would be worse for the country...........call m a Dummi again and it's on.

Sorry no where is McCain a republican...........a RINO at best
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: GOBUCKS on October 09, 2009, 09:56:08 PM
Sorry............but McCains need to be bipartisan would be worse for the country...........call m a Dummi again and it's on.

Sorry no where is McCain a republican...........a RINO at best
No one can dispute that McCain was a lousy candidate. The worst since Bob Dole.

But wait till you see how your muslim leaves the Supreme Court, the roster of federal judges,
the regulatory commissions, and the brazillion other federal appointees that are now in the
hands of a pure socialist.

Yeah, a vote for the jug-eared muslim over ANY Republican is an act of DUmmitude or worse,
ronbotism. Sorry.
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: BlueStateSaint on October 10, 2009, 04:34:04 AM
In a way, I split the difference here.  Obama is going to leave the Federal judiciary in tatters.  All of the regulatory commissions, though . . . When the Republicans retake the House and Senate next year (I'm more and more convinced that this will happen), do remember that the legislative branch controls the purse-strings.  No money for those commissions?  Guess what?  They don't exist.

But, if McCain had been elected, it is entirely possible that he'd try to compromise on quite a few things that weren't in the purview of Defense.  The Republican Party would be still wandering through the wilderness, and would most likely get its' ass handed to it in the 2012 elections, even though the Dems will be defending 24 of the 33 Senate seats up for reelection that year.  It would be quite possible that McCain would be the last Republican President in our lifetimes.

As it stands now, Obama is taking the Democrat Party down that same path--but not all of them know it yet.  It'll be classified as an "ambush."  The M$M will wail and gnash their teeth, and they will discover that ordinary Americans--the ones that actually produce things--can't stand them, as they try to defame Republicans going into the 2012 elections.  It would not surprise me to see actual violence against members of the media for their leftist slants.  I don't want it to happen, but it wouldn't surprise me to see it occur.
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: crockspot on October 10, 2009, 09:12:02 AM
So does this mean the Teabirthers will be guilty of hate crimes, because the DUmmies perceive them to be motivated by race?

And fear not, at least one DUmmy was able to make lemonaide out of this lemon:

Quote
NightWatcher  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)  Journal  Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Wed Oct-07-09 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. so McCain and the other repukes voted against supporting our troops?
Title: Re: primitives discuss Defense Appropriation Bill
Post by: NHSparky on October 10, 2009, 11:05:41 AM
I got a reply from SEN Mike Johanns:

Dear Dutch,

Thank you for contacting my office with your concerns and views. I will be sending you a written letter of response.

etc etc etc...

More than I've ever gotten back from Shaheen or Che-Porter.

Oh, and someone ought to ask the DUmmies to read Article I of the Constitution and find the part which tells Congress to fund healthcare.  Is it before or after Article I, Section 8?