Apparently the Republicans are convinced that they won't be running anything for a while.

Would you vote for a bunch of toddlers who have a temper tantrum when they don't get their way?

I wouldn't have voted for a bunch of people who refused to tell me what their plans were in any detail prior to the election, but apparently a majority of people disagree, and so you Dems are in charge as of January.

With that thought in mind, why should the Republicans try to punch through an appropriations bill (for example) in the lame-duck session? After all, you Dems are going to just change it all if you can. And whatever the Repubs do, you'll just snipe at them, because whatever they do they'll be (in your definition) wrong.

There's no reason for them to pass an appropriations bill now. Put them forward in January and let's hear all the splendid plans you Dems have for the budget. You'll have the majority, and the Senate Republicans can't (per the Byrd rule) filibuster an appropriations bill. So if you Dems can stay organized, you can present whatever appropriations bill you want to President Bush.

Shouldn't take you more than a week or so, right?

Let's see it. Your turn. You wanted it, you got it.

So, Frequency Kenneth, does you diaper need changing so soon ?

Yikes, control your sphincter child

"Let everyone sweep in front of his own door, and the whole world will be clean." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

I bet those GOP bastards steal all the "D's" off of the keyboards.

It's the same press that treats blowjobs as being worse than torture, suspension of habeus corpus, and suspension of the fourth amendment as a non starter.

Chris Matthews was more worked up about Clinton's hummer than Abu Ghraib. If I get these folks in a room, I would love to ask them why.

But Republican legislators punting on half a trillion dollars worth of spending bills because they're "tired" and they want to gum up the works for the incoming Democrats? It's barely worth a yawn.

Hey K-Drum, stop acting like sore winners. You libs won. We get it. Since the American people want you libs to run the country so badly, we're going to let you libs do it by letting you libs pass the trillion dollar spending bills. What's so wrong with giving the American people what they voted for?

"Tax the rich, feed the poor,
Until there are no rich, no more."

IF they all move off shore, who cares?

Steve White,

Only blogs and pundits kept saying the Dems had no plans. If you'd read a few newspapers, you would've seen dozens of articles wherein Democratic leaders debated what they'd do if they were in chrage. I read more than a few myself.

Standard answer (for trifecta & anyone who wonders at petty, immature, destructive, hypocritical, bullying, or perverted behavior from GOPers): That's just the kind of people they are.

Why should Congress pass appropriations bills that were supposed to have been passed well before the end of September? I have no idea, but let me speculate. Maybe the total inability of the Republican Congress to accomplish anything, even something as central as an appropriations bill, is a major reason that American voters decided to throw the bums out.

Democrats just want everyone to keep making excuses for this Republican Congress. All they have to do is be quiet and watch the continuing Republican meltdown.

Steve: They should try to put through an appropriations bill because (a) it was supposed to be finished three months ago, (b) until the bills are passed federal agencies are forced to hobble along on stopgap bills that represent no one's spending priorities, and (c) it's the responsibility of the current Congress. Apparently, though, "responsibility" is not a word in the Republican lexicon anymore.

IOKIARDI!

Hopefully, Congressional Democrats have been collecting of all the things the Republican have done/will do as they turn ove the reins of power. Ans hopefully, they will make the press aware of everthing.

I doubt we're even aware of the magnitude of the Republican tricks underway. The Democrats have to hit the press and hit the press hard with any and all stories of the Republicans antics and every time the press snickers, remind them of the attacks they waged on the Clinton Administration as they shifted power to W. It will be worth several news cycles and we'll need them as the press focuses on the suits Speaker Peolsi wears or the inter-party spats.

Kevin: Go back through previous congresses, and find out how many times Democratic congresses resorted to stopgap bills when they couldn't get it together.

The Democrats sold themselves this election by telling the voters they had all the answers to all the problems, while carefully avoiding any actual details.

Good luck.

I repeat my constant query once more:

What liberal media?

Democrats won because the Republicans handed it to them, by their collective stupidity and incompetence. Thanks guys

I for one wish more congresses, of whatever party, would just kick the can along. And if doing so keeps the new congress from getting up to additional mischief, so much the better.

Let's see it. Your turn. You wanted it, you got it.

Obviously you are a complete turd and a stupid one at that.

It's appropriations bill for THIS YEAR, you compleat moron.

you compleat moron

I likey. Is it anything like The Compleat Angler?

Kevin: Go back through previous congresses, and find out how many times Democratic congresses resorted to stopgap bills when they couldn't get it together.

The Fucking Stupid Turd Machine serves up another Republiturd.

Yes, they use continuing resolutions.

But, O Offalicious One, I have NEVER heard of a congress failing to appropriate by ONE METHOD or another the bills it MUST appropriate before the congress ended.

Repukeliturds are stupider and stupider by the day.

It's astonishing that this hasn't gotten more attention.

I'ts just another example of pro-Republican bias in the media.

I like compleat for exactly that reason.

The media is so LIEberal!!

LIEberal! LIEberal! LIEberal! LIEberal! LIEberal! LIEberal! LIEberal! LIEberal! LIEberal! LIEberal!

... I thought the "mandate" from Election Day was that Democrats are in charge now? Why not look at it as "the glass half full", Democrats get to pass a budget as if they were in power ONE YEAR earlier?
Posted by: Spock on December 6, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

If only the same could apply for the Robert Gates nomination.

(PS. Spock - using IE is illogical. Use Firefox 2.0 - it's got a built in spell-checker. That ought to be a "mandate")

You go, Kevin! Conservatives like Mr. Cook have no sense of common decency or of doing the right thing. I would be equally appalled if Democrats had kicked the fiscal can down the road in such an irresponsible manner and I suspect you would too. Good to see you wade into the Comments section fray again and take down assholes like Mikey!

It's actually "Fiscal Year 2007" (have you already celebrated New Year's Day too?).
Posted by: Spock on December 6, 2006 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

FY'07 began in October '06.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_year

So yes, the accountants HAVE already celebrated New Year's Day.

Nancy Pelosi got us into this fiscal and foreign policy disaster, and she'll just have to get us out!

You go, Kevin! Conservatives like Mr. Cook have no sense of common decency or of doing the right thing. I would be equally appalled if Democrats had kicked the fiscal can down the road in such an irresponsible manner and I suspect you would too. Good to see you wade into the Comments section fray again and take down assholes like Mikey!

FYI: James Kim's body was found.
RIP - at least it wasn't YAMWW this time.

So the Republicans who run America (until January) are scum and hate America, what's new?

Sorry for the double post - my Treo hiccuped.

Also, only two Democrats voted against Gates as the next SecDef. Three Senators did not vote today.
Posted by: Spock on December 6, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

Yes.
Incredibly spineless.
But not surprising.

The only explanations are:

1. They are ignorant of his Iran Contra role.

2. They are aware of his Iran Contral role, but feel there is more to be gained by voting for him, than by voting against him. (ie. they know they don't have the votes to reject him - and don't want to be slimed by the Corporate News Media as "obstructionist")

3. They are aware of his Iran Contra role, and approve. (well, that explains Lieberman's vote. . . I can't explain what the fuck Carl Levin was thinking)

(OBF - I told you on the other thread - I am stealing your "brought to you by the letters W., T. and F." It's just to good to leave it unpilfered...

Um, after all the smallness, pettyness, callowness, and just plain meanness Republicans have demonstrated for the past 12 years, we expected them to be gracious in defeat? Their conduct is what was to be expected of them. There's no reason to expect better.

Steve White:
With that thought in mind, why should the Republicans try to punch through an appropriations bill (for example) in the lame-duck session? After all, you Dems are going to just change it all if you can. And whatever the Repubs do, you'll just snipe at them, because whatever they do they'll be (in your definition) wrong.

Uhm, they should have tried to "punch through" legislation as, you know, their job required prior to the election. Instead, they tried to go for the politically expedient measures sure to rally their base, right? Yep, Republicans put the their party's interests before the interests of the country, but you already knew that.

Thanks for admitting that Republicans knew they were losers prior to the election. How does it feel to just know in your gut that you're a loser.

Pelosi and Reid should indicate to the Repukeliturd "leadership" that, if they want to be allowed to participate in ANY SINGLE reconciliation meeting, the Omnibus must be passed NOW.

If they don't do their job, they should be shut out of all responsibilities in the next congress.

"We're cleaning up the mess" has to be the Democratic Congress's slogan. It should work to shut up the whining Republicans who made the mess, and it will also explain why, in certain areas such as Iraq, we're not really able to make everything all right.

Republicans and conservatives haven't changed and they haven't learned anything. Obce the Democrats are in office, the Republicans will come back aggressively with their usual deception and viciousness, and Democrats have to hit back hard.

What has changed is that the voters have got a little wise, and the Republicans are at a little disadvantage. It's up to the Democrats to keep them there, though.

Pelosi and Reid should indicate to the Repukeliturd "leadership" that, if they want to be allowed to participate in ANY SINGLE reconciliation meeting, the Omnibus must be passed NOW.
Posted by: POed Lib on December 6, 2006 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

I think the nation (and the world) is actually better served if the Bill is passed by a Democratic-controlled congress, AND the Repukeliturd "leadership" is denied participation in any single reconciliation meeting.

The Republicans asked for no quarter when they completely shut Democrats out of the process in the last two congresses. So none should be given for any congress moving forward.

The Republicans set the standard. Lets see THEM live by it.

Kevin: Go back through previous congresses, and find out how many times Democratic congresses resorted to stopgap bills when they couldn't get it together.

rnc: You're the one making this claim. Why don't you go back and find out?

Kevin:
"responsibility" is not a word in the Republican lexicon anymore

Oh, yes it is, but only if it's in a sentence with "blowjob."

Extra:
The Republicans set the standard. Lets see THEM live by it.

I hear you... but we need to be better than they are, because we know we are.

And the other nice thing about this present from the Republicans:

Reid and Pelosi can now pass a relative clean budget, cutting out all of the crap that Bush wants and they don't, and present it to Bush (hopefully) before the State of the Union...

And when he complains, they say : "Sign it now in the spirit of bipartisanship you have been talking about for the last two months. Fuckwit."

Because we are Democrats we will do what is right,If the Pukers want to take there ball and cry all the way home,So be it.But lucky for America the Dems will be there to fix the mess.God bless the Democrats!!

I hear you... but we need to be better than they are, because we know we are.

To a degree, I agree. However, there must be consequences. So, here's my thought. We find out how many dems were in the reconciliation, and we do the same, except we allow 1 more republican. If there were 20 Repukes and 1 dem, we allow 2 repukes in .

Observations like this make me literally boil with hatred for the idiots in charge of the major news media outlets in this country.

I think the next cause should be for us, the public, to take back the airwaves we are generously leasing to these greedy corporatist idiots.

Anybody got any ideas?

"We're cleaning up the mess" has to be the Democratic Congress's slogan. It should work to shut up the whining Republicans who made the mess, and it will also explain why, in certain areas such as Iraq, we're not really able to make everything all right.

It's actually a devastating prelude to the 2008 elections when all 435 members of the House and 33 Senators go up for election. Every single Republican who survived the last beating is now vulnerable on this subject--the last time they were in charge, they abdicated their responsibilities and left everyone else to pay the check.

I think they already know the truth--there is no way they'll get the House back, not until there's some other shift back their way that they can't even begin to initiate.

The old guard has to go. I worry about that guy Pence from Indiana--he's a future leader of the Republican caucus in the Senate and a true fiscal conservative.

Did you expect anything less from the Publicans?

Oh, and I see that the Freq Ken totally ignores the substance of the post. Again, I expect nothing less.

Can we withhold their paychecks???

Steve White vomits...With that thought in mind, why should the Republicans try to punch through an appropriations bill (for example) in the lame-duck session

Ummm, because it's there goddamn fucking job perhaps? Is there anything you WON'T apologize for when it comes to the Publicans or the incompetent Bush, you mendacious fuck? Didn't think so.

The Conservative Deflator >"...my Treo hiccuped."

Well burp it then

"We are all individual molecules of a great social gas." - Huxley

Just seen at tpm,

From Jonathan Landay at McClatchy ...

The Bush administration routinely has underreported the level of violence in Iraq in order to disguise its policy failings, the Iraq Study Group report said Wednesday.

...

On page 94 of its report, the Iraq Study Group found that there had been "significant under-reporting of the violence in Iraq." The reason, the group said, was because the tracking system was designed in a way that minimized the deaths of Iraqis.

"The standard for recording attacks acts a filter to keep events out of reports and databases," the report said. "A murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack. If we cannot determine the source of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the database. A roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn't hurt U.S. personnel doesn't count."

How much time do we put into determining the 'sectarian source' behind the death of every individual Iraqi?
-- Josh Marshall

As this documents an ongoing, systemic effort at perpetuating fraud to extend our involvement to the consequent and obvious detriment of our national interest it describes the whole Bush foreign policy apparatus as a criminal enterprise.

The Iraq Study Group report is the first step to a formal indictment on the grounds of high crimes and misdemeanors, if not actual treason.

We should be talking about the new weapon that the degenerates at the Pentagon have developed. I'm sure these sickos will use it on innocent Iraqis or innocent Americans exercising their First Amendment rights.

What do you think?

Spock,

I agree, they have so much to answer for, but I think this is the thin part of the wedge because it's a cover-up and the Iraq Study Group rather makes it official.

The dedication of the RNC hacks who show up here to defend their corrupt and feckless party day after day is inspiring. Not.
This is the least productive Congress ever
...They call it the Tuesday to Thursday Club," said Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn. "That means you get here Tuesday night, you have a few easy votes, you vote on Wednesday and then you go back home Thursday afternoon. And that, believe it or not, is considered a work week in Washington."
Rank-and-file members of Congress earn $165,200 a year, and this year for the first time they took off for a St. Patrick's Day holiday....
Some Republicans are in revolt: 4-1/2 day work week too much
"Keeping us up here eats away at families," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who typically flies home on Thursdays and returns to Washington on Tuesdays. "Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says."
Heaven forfend they should have to work for 165K per annum.

... how many times Democratic congresses resorted to stopgap bills when they couldn't get it together... rnc at 5:35 PM

Bedwetter: "The Dems have to actually take a stand on federal spending. Shamefull!"

You guys can't read, can you? The post wasn't about the Dems' inability to take a stand but the Repubs' reluctance to follow through on the budgets already in place.

Can we withhold their paychecks???

ppk brings up an excellent point and I'm gonna try to flesh it out--

There should be a law that states that if a Congress adjourns as this one does--before the completion of required spending bills--that the members are denied their pensions for one fiscal year.

That would include ALL members, not just one party. This would be an incentive to ensure that both parties work to conclude their business before adjournment. Obviously, this was a problem of the leadership in the House and I have no idea how Hastert and Boehner are not being roasted for this. It should be something that applies to all members to prevent the minority from blocking legislation as well.

Write it into law--no Congress shall adjourn at the end of its two year term without completing the spending/appropriations bills and just make a list of what those are.

If a Congress (this was the 109th, I think) adjourns without completing its required business, ALL members of that body who served in the last 90 days of that Congress have their pension and health care benefits withheld for one fiscal year after they retire.

Write it down, sponsor it, and make it a new reform.

All those questions are irrelevant to the point that they intentionally created a system to obscure the amount of deaths in furtherance an activity that will likely be viewed by as criminal in the first place, so it becomes a conspiracy to hide a criminal act in the hope that it will all just go away or become so confused no one will be able to sort it out.

Working out why they made this arrangement works back to why they needed it.

PAle Rider - "Write it into law--no Congress shall adjourn at the end of its two year term without completing the spending/appropriations bills and just make a list of what those are."

It's such a great proposal that it will never happen.

You're a brilliant political scientist, Pale. You should consider a change of career.

Let's reread what it said,

On page 94 of its report, the Iraq Study Group found that there had been "significant under-reporting of the violence in Iraq." The reason, the group said, was because the tracking system was designed in a way that minimized the deaths of Iraqis.

"The standard for recording attacks acts a filter to keep events out of reports and databases," the report said. "A murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack. If we cannot determine the source of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the database. A roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn't hurt U.S. personnel doesn't count."

Well somebody certainly set it up that way. Figuring this out can be the easy part, the thin edge of the wedge.

Missed an italicized paragraph, there.

As Josh Marshall concluded, How much time do you think they devote to figuring out exactly what faction shot each dead guy?

With that as the standard they can blithely undercount the dead bodies by a huge factor.

For those of you who, in response to my earlier post say that it was the Republican responsibility to get appropriations bills done by the end of September, why, yes, it was the responsibility of both parties to get it done.

If these bills were that important, Dems could have joined with Repubs to get them passed. And if you say, no, no, it was the job of the majority to get them passed, why then you're hoisted on your own petard: because you'll have the majority come January.

So pass them. The stop-gap bill expires Feb. 15th unless you kick the can further down the road.

There's no reason to rush through an appropriations bill in the lame-duck session. By all means take your time, debate each one completely, write them as you wish. And we'll see how well you do.

But if it's important to get them done this month, fine: have Speaker-to-be Pelosi work with Speaker Hastert, and Majority Leader-to-be Reid work with Majority Leader Frist, to get them done now. Put the votes up for passage of the bills as they stand today.

You wanted the job, you got it.

For those of you who, in response to my earlier post say that it was the Republican responsibility to get appropriations bills done by the end of September, why, yes, it was the responsibility of both parties to get it done.

No, it was the responsibility of the House leadership to get the bills out of their committees and on the legislative calendar. Kind of hard to do when this congress only met 103 days last year.

If these bills were that important, Dems could have joined with Repubs to get them passed. And if you say, no, no, it was the job of the majority to get them passed, why then you're hoisted on your own petard: because you'll have the majority come January.

House Democrats wanted all kinds of things to get done--too bad the legislative calendar wasn't controlled by them. House Democrats wanted to have all kinds of oversight hearings and all kinds of debate on the substance of those spending bills--too bad they couldn't get the Republican leadership to allow these things to go forward.

See, for the last few years at least, the "Tom DeLay" Congress, as it has been organized, was incapable of allowing the Democratic minority to do ANYTHING of a substantive nature because of how the rules were enforced with regards to placing items on the legislative calendar.

Used to be, when a vote occurred, there was a time limit on voting. The Republicans ended that--so that DeLay could twist arms. By keeping the vote open, he could manipulate the legislative process to eliminate any influence the minority party might have--he could go to anyone on the fence who didn't want to vote a certain way and threaten them, cajole them, and ultimately force legislation to pass that was compromised by this unprecedented voting process.

Sorry--too much substance to my smackdown of your wobbly bullcrap? Too bad.

When you can't get your amendments or your bills on the legislative calendar, you have no ability to influence legislation in this country. You might as well wipe your butt with that wonderful bill to help people pay for college and you might as well give up trying to make sure that the Department of Defense is adequately accounting for the money it is handing to defense contractors because you can't call the responsible officials to the Hill and put them under oath and investigate whether they are actually doing what the law requires them to do.

It is intellectually dishonest and completely without any basis in reality to assume that the House Democrats of the last Congress could do anything on their own to affect these things--for crying out loud, they couldn't even get rooms in which to meet in the Capitol.

Do all of you wingnuts come with the standard-issue blanket denial of reality? Have you cracked a book or looked in a newspaper or read anything online lately? Because it just doesn't seem like you've been operating with your head outside of the confines of your ass.

Dear friends -

I am currently seeing a guy who makes me sweaty. Not because we rub our bodies together regularly; we haven't gotten to that yet. He makes me sweaty from across the room. He makes me sweaty and stinky. Also, I twitch and stutter. I am scared.

This is bad because my personality, which is usually charming and adorable, is now stilted. We have such a good time together, but as soon as I realize how much fun I am having and how much I like him, instead of coming across like the charismatic dreamboat who I am, I come across as a dork who stares at her shoes and has nothing to say. Then I feel stupid, so I start lashing out at Bob.

I've been inventing a fake persona for myself, with an Army background. And saying stupid stuff like shoot, move, communicate, just to impress him. What should I do?

Help me, please. I am turning into a hostile geek. Hostile geeks sweat profusely, but they do not get laid. Am I afraid of him, afraid of having fun, afraid of really liking someone? If so, what do I do about it?

Hmm, I wonder who could be spoofing me tonight?

I dunno, Pale Rider, but I gave you mad props and reposted something you wrote. Check it when you have time.

Just a thought and I could be wrong, but...

...the Democratic Party and the British labout Party have always had pretty strong links. When the Labour Party was first elected under Blair, they put through a huge amount of legislation through Parliament in the first six months. They wanted to hit the ground running to show they were serious about governing.

The Democrats through their links to the Labour party might have envisaged the same sort of approach. It would demonstrate their seriousness about the job and if Bush vetoed too many of them, he and the GOP would end up looking even more partisan and obstructive - very bad for 2008.

However, if there is a ton of bills and legislation that needs enacting on a tight timeframe at ther beginning of their tenure, this might stop this sort of apporach and allow Sean Hannity to report that the Democrats are only now approving budgets after huge delays - how could we have trusted them?

It would demonstrate their seriousness about the job and if Bush vetoed too many of them

Given that Bush has vetoed a single bill in six years, *any* veto should be seen and announced as a clear sign of partisan obstruction on his part. The gloves come off at that point.

The people have spoken. It's up to Reid and Pelosi to serve as the agents of the change the citizens of this great nation want and deserve.

The Germans were clearly better off under Hitler than during the war which destroyed his regime. They were not dying, except for the Jews among them and the Communists and the socialists and homosexuals and even some religious dissenters--and in the beginning not so many of them.

For those of you who, in response to my earlier post say that it was the Republican responsibility to get appropriations bills done by the end of September, why, yes, it was the responsibility of both parties to get it done.

For a Repukeliturd, you are a really especially stupid one. I know that your stupidity is feigned to a degree, but it is amazing that someone as terminally stupid as yourself can actually type and breathe at the same time.

LEADERSHIP BRINGS RESPONSIBILITY. Being a Repukeliturd, you don't know that. Dems, being adults, do.

Now, go and beat off, you fuckwad.

Faith's last gasp
Despite superficial appearances of a resurgence in religious belief, we are actually witnessing the death throes of faith

On the basis of apparently incontrovertible evidence, commentators of various persuasions, among them Eric Kaufmann in the last issue of Prospect, John Gray, writing recently in the New Statesman, and Damon Linker, author of The Theocons: Secular America Under Siege (Doubleday) are convinced that we are witnessing an upsurge in religious observance and influence.

Kaufmann relies on the weak argument that demographic trends will turn Europe into a predominantly religious place, John Gray seems to hope that this will be so, and Damon Linker is convinced that a “theocon” conspiracy has so successfully captured Washington that the US has become a de facto theocracy—the home of faith-based politics, faith-based science (creationism), faith-based medicine ("pro-life"), faith-based foreign policy (conducting jihad for American/Baptist values) and faith-based attacks on civil liberties. Add this to the all too obvious fact of political Islam—Islamism—and the case seems made.

But I see the same evidence as yielding the opposite conclusion. What we are witnessing is not the resurgence of religion, but its death throes. Two considerations support this claim. One is that there are close and instructive historical precedents for what is happening now. The second comes from an analysis of the nature of contemporary religious politics.

If a given interest group turns up the volume, it is usually reacting to provocation. We view the Victorian era as a sanctimonious period of improving movements such as self-help, temperance and university missions to city slums. But prudishness and do-goodery existed precisely because their contraries—poverty, drunkenness, godlessness and indecency—were endemic: some streets of Victorian London swarmed with child prostitutes, and were too dangerous to walk at night. In the same way, today’s “religious upsurge” is a reaction to the prevalence of its opposite. In fact, it is a reaction to defeat, in a war that it cannot win even if it succeeds in a few battles on the way down.

Here is what is happening. Over the last half-century, sections of the Muslim world have become increasingly affronted by the globalisation of western and especially American culture and values, which appears arrogantly to disdain their traditions. Yet latterly, some of these same sections of Islam have been emboldened by the victory of warriors of the faith over a superpower (Afghanistan’s mujahedin over Soviet Russia); the combination encourages them to assert their opposition to the engulfing encroachment of western modernity, even by taking up arms.

When a climate of heightened tension such as this prompts activists in one religious group to become more assertive, to push their way forward in the public domain to demand more attention, more respect, more public funds (faith-based schools are one example), other religious groups, not wishing to be left behind, follow suit. In Britain, Muslim activism has been quickly mimicked by others—by Sikhs demonstrating about a play, Christian evangelicals demonstrating about an opera, and all of them leaping on the funding bandwagon for faith and interfaith initiatives. To placate them, politicians lend an ear; the media report it; immediately these minorities of interest have an amplifier for their presence. The effect is that suddenly it seems as if there are religious devotees everywhere, and the spurious magnification of their importance further promotes their confidence. As a result they make some gains, as the faith schools example shows.

Yet the fact is that only 10 per cent of the British population attend church, mosque, synagogue or temple every week, and this figure is declining in all but immigrant communities. This is hardly the stuff of religious resurgence. Yes, over half the population claim vaguely to believe in Something, which includes feng shui and crystals, and they may be “C of E” in the sense of “Christmas and Easter,” but they are functionally secularist and would be horrified if asked to live according to the letter of (say) Christian morality: giving all one’s possessions to the poor, taking no thought for the morrow and so impracticably forth. Not even Christian clerics follow these injunctions. This picture is repeated everywhere in the west except the US, and there too the religious base is eroding.

The historical precedent of the counter-Reformation is instructive. For over a century after Luther nailed his theses to Wittenberg’s church door, Europe was engulfed in ferocious religious strife, because the church was losing its hitherto hegemonic grip and had no intention of doing so without a fight. Millions died, and Catholicism won some battles even as it lost the war. We are witnessing a repeat today, this time with Islamism resisting the encroachment of a way of life that threatens it, and as other religious groups join them in a (strictly temporary, given the exclusivity of faith) alliance for the cause of religion in general.

As before, the grinding of historical tectonic plates will be painful and protracted. But the outcome is not in doubt. As private observance, religion will of course survive among minorities; as a factor in public and international affairs it is having what might be its last—characteristically bloody—fling.

'It's actually "Fiscal Year 2007"...', someone said.

And that would be the year ending February 30, right?

This thread is about Republicans ditching their budget responsbilities.

What do posts about Iran have to do with anything???

If we do not confront this guy and take his evil regime out now by whatever means necessary, history will repeat itself.

Another fascist poster.

If you hate him so much, go take him out yourself.

I just cannot stand more Repukeliturds like nina trying the same trick again.

They lied about Iraq.

Now, they are lying about Iran.

Take your fascist shit somewhere else, nina. We are not imperialist bullies anymore, after 11/7.

Original thoughts = welcome, even when we disagree, so long as they are intellectually honest.

Cut-and-paste = stupid, lazy and boorish. Always.

What character, the "w"?

The Republican School of Personal Responsibility: We broke it, you fix it!

Gee, Nina, I didn't quite get that. Can you quickly repeat what you said? And do feel free to elaborate!

Congress hasn't passed all 13 appropriations bills by the October 1 start of the government's fiscal year for a long time.

Either the budget process or our representatives' commitment to do their job needs to change.

万维网酒店联盟,是一个专门为您提供酒店资讯的网站，是一个可以轻松实现酒店预定 酒店预订的平台.
万维网火车站,您进行火车票查询和了解火车站的摇篮，我们会为您提供最新的列车时刻表信息。欢迎光临!
站点地图sitemap

cld: As this documents an ongoing, systemic effort at perpetuating fraud to extend our involvement to the consequent and obvious detriment of our national interest it describes the whole Bush foreign policy apparatus as a criminal enterprise.

I'd suggest 'the whole Bush policy apparatus as a criminal enterprise' without specifying merely their foreign policy.

"During the past 30 years, per capita gross domestic product has about doubled, yet about four Americans in five are actually worse off. All the growth went to the top, mostly to the top 1 percent." - Robert Kuttner - 'The Ameircan Prospect

Yes, RICO is such a wonderful concept.

Original thoughts = welcome, even when we disagree, so long as they are intellectually honest.

That standard ought to keep the trolls quiet...

Yes, it is really, really depressing that the government can't operate on continuing resolutions. Oh, wait, the governemnt has done this for entire fiscal years in the past when Democrats controlled Congress.

The point is that the government will go on just fine without the actual spending bills being passed, and let's face it- a majority of Democrats would have voted against the bills anyway. So, what exactly, is the complaint? Democrats can just ignore the present year, keep passing the stop-gap bills, and work on next year's budget like the mature adults they are.

'It's actually "Fiscal Year 2007"...', someone said.

And that would be the year ending February 30, right?

The US Federal Government's fiscal year runs from October 1 through September 30.

The point is that the government will go on just fine without the actual spending bills being passed, and let's face it- a majority of Democrats would have voted against the bills anyway. So, what exactly, is the complaint? Democrats can just ignore the present year, keep passing the stop-gap bills, and work on next year's budget like the mature adults they are.

Wow, the supply of stupidity trolls is unlimited.

They are hired to do a job. They didn't do a job.

They are lazy, stupid, incompetent morons. To say it in a word, they are Republiscum.

Today's Republican Party: Stupid, intellectually dishonest, incompetent, corrupt, venal, lying, religious zealots.

My point was that this can be really easy to get to. It would be a short and straightforward discovery process. Once you've established this was intended from day one to obscure the death rate it inevitably leads to requiring an answer to the question of why they would have established such a thing right at the outset.

In this way you eliminate their premise of innocence or naivete and they can only defend themselves within degrees of guilt and culpibility.

Today's Republican Party: Stupid, intellectually dishonest, incompetent, corrupt, venal, lying, religious zealots.

And the irony of ironies is, our resident trolls keep proving it!

But the stories! There were hundreds of them, all agog over the news that a few staffers had removed the W keys from their keyboards. So immature! So childish!

'Projection,' Kevin.

Republicans made up stories about outgoing Democrats based on their own imaginative fantasizing.

I would still like to know who gave the word for that organized slander campaign. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it was the same person. I had the same reaction as yours when I read this story - this one and the Baker report's release today. They all had the same flavor, of earlier times in this administration, and the 9/11 Commission's Report ("We agreed to include in the report only that which we all agreed on, all of us would speak with one voice, no minority report").

After the conclusion of the 2000 election, with the Supreme Court stepping in which left the country badly divided, what kind of minds decide to make up stories of Clinton staffers vandalizing the White House? What kind of a media blithely reports it as fact, for weeks, doesn't track down the origin of the order to tell the lies, and then treats all comments from Bush-Cheney & staff as truth?

The Bush administration is the most unscrupulous, devious, deceptive group of people in our nation's history (much worse than the Nixon administration), and yet the media continues to vouch for their integrity, and honorability, and treats anyone who suggests otherwise with skepticism. How many times does Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice-Rove-Hadley-Fleischer-Snow-Bartlett-Bolton-Hughes have to be caught in a lie before the media catches wise?

"nina", I'm sure I speak for all of us when I say enough already with the spamming the threads with your cut-and-paste bullshit. Thanks in advance.

I must admit it is quite surprising to find the commenters here complaining that Republicans didn't pass enough legislation while in power. Do you really want the Republicans to leave a bigger imprint on fiscal year 2007?

Talk about stupidity.

The Berlin Declaration on the Incitement to Genocide by the Regime of Iran – November 2006

*Background - This document was drafted by the Honorable Professor Irwin Cotler (former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada; Law Professor of Human Rights – on leave McGill University) and Dr Charles Small (Director of the Yale University Initiative on the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism). This document was first presented to the OSCE experts meeting on "Best Practices in Combating Anti-Semitism" Berlin 20 and 21 November 2006, at the Bundestag/ German Parliament – Berlin. Dr. Small read it into the record and distributed it to those in attendance. He encouraged all present, especially members of governments, to address the incitement engaged by members of the Iranian regime and that governments take responsibility to these actions as defined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Whereas the Contracting Parties to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law,which they undertake to prevent and to punish. (Article One) Whereas, under the Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group... and includes, under Article Three (c) the prohibition against direct and public incitement to commit genocide Whereas, under Article Four, persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article Three shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals. Whereas, under Article Eight, any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article Three. Whereas, under Article Nine, disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article Three, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.

Whereas, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and other former and present members of the government of Iran, have consistently violated the prohibition against direct and public incitement to genocide, in their clear and persistent calls for the “annihilation” of Israel and for “Israel to be wiped off the map, as the Imam says”.

Whereas these public and direct genocidal threats and incitements also violate the United Nations Charter’s prohibition against any threat or act against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State of the United Nations.
Whereas these public and direct genocidal threats and incitements also violate the prohibition in the Statute for an International Criminal Court against the public and direct genocidal threats and incitements.
1
Whereas these public and direct genocidal threats and incitements are accompanied by a publicly avowed intent to acquire nuclear weapons, so as to “eliminate” Israel “in one single storm.”
Therefore, be it resolved, that the OSCE expert meeting on "Best Practices in Combating Anti-Semitism", on the 21 November 2006, at the Deutscher Bundestag/ German Parliament - in Berlin adopt the following; i) calls upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of the public and direct incitements to commit genocide as enumerated under Article Three (c) of the Genocide Convention;
ii) recommends that disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of the OSCE or any of its members;
iii) recommends that the OSCE, or any of its member states, refer to the United Nations Security Council the situation of the genocidal criminality, under Article Three (c) of the Genocide Convention, of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and other former and present members of the Iranian government, for further reference to the Special Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court for investigation.
____________________
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.

Article 1
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
2
• (a) Killing members of the group;
• (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 3
The following acts shall be punishable:
• (a) Genocide;
• (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
• (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
• (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
• (e) Complicity in genocide.

Article 4
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Article 5
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.

Article 6
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.

Article 7
3
Genocide and the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition. The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.

Article 8
Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.

Article 9
Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.

Article 10
The present Convention, of which the Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall bear the date of 9 December 1948.

Article 11
The present Convention shall be open until 31 December 1949 for signature on behalf of any Member of the United Nations and of any non-member State to which an invitation to sign has been addressed by the General Assembly. The present Convention shall be ratified, and the instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. After 1 January 1950, the present Convention may be acceded to on behalf of any Member of the United Nations and of any non-member State which has received an invitation as aforesaid. 4
Instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 12
Any Contracting Party may at any time, by notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, extend the application of the present Convention to all or any of the territories for the conduct of whose foreign relations that Contracting Party is responsible.

Article 13
On the day when the first twenty instruments of ratification or accession have been deposited, the Secretary-General shall draw up a proces-verbal and transmit a copy of it to each Member of the United Nations and to each of the non-member States contemplated in Article 11. The present Convention shall come into force on the ninetieth day following the date of deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession. Any ratification or accession effected subsequent to the latter date shall become effective on the ninetieth day following the deposit of the instrument of ratification or accession.

Article 14
The present Convention shall remain in effect for a period of ten years as from the date of its coming into force. It shall thereafter remain in force for successive periods of five years for such Contracting Parties as have not denounced it at least six months before the expiration of the current period. Denunciation shall be effected by a written notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 15
If, as a result of denunciations, the number of Parties to the present Convention should become less than sixteen, the Convention shall cease to be in force as from the date on which the last of these denunciations shall become effective.
5

Article 16
A request for the revision of the present Convention may be made at any time by any Contracting Party by means of a notification in writing addressed to the Secretary-General. The General Assembly shall decide upon the steps, if any, to be taken in respect of such request.

Article 17
The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall notify all Members of the United Nations and the non-member States contemplated in Article 11 of the following:
• (a) Signatures, ratifications and accessions received in accordance with Article 11;
• (b) Notifications received in accordance with Article 12;
• (c) The date upon which the present Convention comes into force in accordance with Article 13;
• (d) Denunciations received in accordance with Article 14;
• (e) The abrogation of the Convention in accordance with Article 15;
• (f) Notifications received in accordance with Article 16.

Article 18
The original of the present Convention shall be deposited in the archives of the United Nations. A certified copy of the Convention shall be transmitted to all Members of the United Nations and to the non-member States contemplated in Article 11.

Article 19
The present Convention shall be registered by the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the date of its coming into force.
6

Addition Material on the incitement to Genocide –
Recent and relevant quotes by - Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

October 2006 – Amadinajad a message to Europe.
Since You Brought [This Regime] Over There, You Yourselves Pick it up, By the Arms and Legs, and Remove it From There" "Our proposal is as follows: Since you brought [this regime] over there, you yourselves pick it up, by the arms and legs, and remove it from there. This will make the peoples of the region improve their attitude toward you. These will be the first steps to a long-lasting friendship with the peoples of the region. This will be to your advantage. "You may say: 'We feel uncomfortable doing this, because the Zionists control our countries, the propaganda machinery is at their disposal, and if we want to gain voters, we need their money and their support. Therefore, we feel uncomfortable doing this.'

August 6, 2006 "They (Israel) kill women and children, young and old. And, behind closed doors, they make plans for the advancement of their evil goals." (as quoted by Khorasan Provincial TV)

August 4, 2006 "A new Middle East will prevail without the existence of Israel." (as quoted by Malaysian news agency Bernama website) August 2, 2006 "Are they human beings?... They (Zionists) are a group of blood-thirsty savages putting all other criminals to shame." (as quoted by Iranian TV)

July 16, 2006 "The Zionists think that they are victims of Hitler, but they act like Hitler and behave worse than Genghis Khan." (as quoted by the Iranian News Agency)

July 13, 2006 "The Zionists and their protectors are the most detested people in all of humanity, and the hatred is increasing every day." "The worse their crimes, the quicker they will fall." "[Israel] has blackened the pages of history". (as quoted by Iranian state television)

June 16, 2006 "I think we have sufficiently talked about this matter and these Holocaust events need to be further investigated by independent and impartial parties." "An event that has influenced so many diplomatic and political equations of the world needs to investigated and researched by impartial and independent groups." "If it is true, then the response to this question should not be solved in Palestine. The Palestinian question should be settled as soon as possible. If it is false, why should such measures be taken against the people of Palestine?" (a news conference following a meeting with China's president)

May 28, 2006 "I believe the German people are prisoners of the Holocaust. More than 60 million were killed in World War II . . . The question is: Why is it that only the Jews are at the center of attention?" "We say that if the Holocaust happened, then the Europeans must accept the consequences and the price should not be paid by Palestine. If it did not happen, then the Jews must return to where they came from." (in an interview with Germany's Der Spiegel magazine)

May 11, 2006 Israel is "a regime based on evil that cannot continue and one day will vanish." (to a student rally in Jakarta, Indonesia)

April 24, 2006 ''We say that this fake regime (Israel) cannot not logically continue to live. Open the doors (of Europe) and let the Jews go back to their own countries." (In a news conference held on April 24, 2006)

April 14, 2006 "The Zionist regime is an injustice and by its very nature a permanent threat. Whether you like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation. The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm." "If there is serious doubt over the Holocaust, there is no doubt over the catastrophe and holocaust being faced by the Palestinians. Holocaust has been continuing in Palestine over the past 60 years." (In a speech at the opening of the "Support for the Palestinian Intifada" conference on

April 14-16 hosted in Tehran) February 23, 2006 "These heinous acts are committed by a group of Zionists and occupiers
that have failed. They have failed in the face of Islam's logic and justice . . . They invade the shrine and bomb there because they oppose God and justice . . . But be sure, you will not be saved from the wrath and power of the justice-seeking nations by resorting to such acts." (In a speech broadcast on state television, where Ahmadinejad suggested that the bombing of a major Shiite shrine in Iraq by Sunni insurgents was plotted by Israel and the U.S. to divide Muslims.)

January 5, 2006 "Hopefully, the news that the criminal of Sabra and Chatilla has joined his ancestors is final." (To a group of Muslim clerics in the Iranian city of Qom, as quoted in the semi-official student news agency ISNA) "[N]o Muslim nation would put up with this entity [i.e. Israel] in Islamic lands, not for one moment … If it's true that the [Europeans] committed a big crime in World War II, then they must take responsibility for it themselves, and not ask the Palestinian people to pay the price … Those countries that support this regime [Israel] were terrified at the suggestion that [Israel] should be relocated to their neighborhood. So why should the Palestinians and the countries in our region accept this entity?" (In a speech before an audience in the Iranian city of Qom, aired on television)

January 2, 2006 "[The creation of Israel after World War II] killed two birds with one stone [for Europe] … [The objectives achieved by Europe were] [s]weeping the Jews out of Europe and at the same time creating a European appendix with a Zionist and anti-Islamic nature in the heart of the Islamic world …Zionism is a Western ideology and a colonialist idea ... and right now it massacres Muslims with direct guidance and help from the United States and a part of Europe ... Zionism is basically a new [form of] fascism." (In written answers to questions from the public reproduced in several Iranian newspapers)

December 14, 2005 "Today, they [Europeans] have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets … This is our proposal: give a part of your own land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to them [Jews] so that the Jews can establish their country." (Speaking to thousands of people in the Iranian city of Zahedan)

December 8, 2005 "Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces.... Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, our question for the Europeans is: Is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem? If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe -- like in Germany, Austria or other countries -- to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe." (While speaking to reporters at an Islamic summit in Mecca)

October 26, 2005 "Israel must be wiped off the map … The establishment of a Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world . . . The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of the war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land." (In an address to 4,000 students at a program titled, 'The World Without Zionism')

___________________

Posted by Gregory

this could end up being a problem for Bush on the budget side:

Democrats could simply extend the stopgap resolution again in February and set themselves up as a budget appeals court of sorts, to which the administration will have to come for relief. "I think we can work through it, but it is not our preference," said White House budget chief Rob Portman. But the administration admits it could yet pay a price if the spending issues become entangled with President Bush's spring supplemental-spending request for military operations in Iraq.

plus the Dems could attack conditions about iraq to the budget supplementals, like say get the fuck out!

Swell. "nina"'s both trollspamming and handle spoofing.

Nooooooooooooooooooooo, Washington Monthly, y'all don't need to upgrade your comments system.

The thing about the ISG report is that the report undercuts the Murtha crowd by delegitimizing the quick bug-out (AKA redeployment) option and makes staying in Iraq at least until '08 the "conventional" or "mainstream" point of view. For Bush, isn't this the only part of the ISG report that matters? And when it comes to the actual situation in Iraq, the report basically confirms established policies of the White House and the Pentagon. So, in effect, doesn't the heralded bipartisan commission in effect give Bush the leeway to — ahem — stay the course?

If nothing else, we have this good news from the can kicking.