[Vision2020] Essay on Globalism by Ron Paul

[pkraut at moscow.com]

OR it just might be that the dems know they didn't win another election 
for 9 years after they didn't fund the military in Vietnam?? Is it 
political hedging?? Or is a real lack of support for cut and run?? In 
reading the blogs around the country I think they actually realize that 
they would only be popular with a small percentage of the populace. They 
just don't want to be forced into actually making a decision and having to 
back it up for a lot of years. Once again the political decision is not 
the one the military is fighting for and it would be a big mistake to not 
listen. But then they can just keep blaming the repubs...or can they?



> Arnold, Arnold, Arnold -
> 
>  
> 
> If you have been following the news this past month or so, you would have
> realized (like all of the rest of us have) that Congress IS refusing to
> finance the war any further than September (or is it November?).
> 
>  
> 
> Congress' refusal to further finance Bush's war is what gave birth to 
Bush's
> claim that Congress refuses to provide a sizeable pay hike for the 
military,
> which is tied into the budget for Bush's war.  It is all tied into the
> budget for fiscal year '08.  If Congress refuses to pass the FY08 
budget, as
> written, (which, for all intents and purposes, it intends to do), 
finances
> for Bush's war run extremely shallow and the military does not get its 
much
> needed pay raise.
> 
> Seeya round town, Moscow.
> 
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
> 
> "We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students. The college
> students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."
> 
> - Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007) 
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-
bounces at moscow.com]
> On Behalf Of Donovan Arnold
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 12:14 AM
> To: Andreas Schou
> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Essay on Globalism by Ron Paul
> 
>  
> 
> Andreas,
> 
>  
> 
> If Congress really wanted to end the war all they have to do is not fund 
it.
> It requires 60% in the Senate and majority vote in the House to continue 
to
> fund the operations. US House, which controls the purse strings, could 
end
> the war tomorrow by voting to cut it off. 
> 
>  
> 
> They instead are trying to shift the ending of the war to the Senate
> intentionally in a way that does not impact funding, which is harder to 
do
> politically, they know that.  
> 
>  
> 
> One or two senators could potentially block a bill in the Senate or at 
least
> slow it way down. It is difficult to pass legislation. 
> 
>  
> 
> When I was in the ASUI Senate, I use to slow down appointments to paid
> positions that were made to buddies of other elected officials. I wanted
> people that were best for the job, not someone getting a check because 
they
> helped their frat buddy with campaigning. Today, appointments now have 
to go
> through a process that screens out individuals not qualified, but it was 
not
> that way when I was in, the victor went the spoils and ASUI paychecks.
> 
>  
> 
> There is a whole host of motions and parliamentary procedures,
> filibustering, and other tactics a senator can use to slow down or 
disrupt
> legislation. Two senators can place huge road blocks in the way of
> legislation they really disagree with.  If a committee chair can also 
wage
> more havoc as well. 
> 
>  
> 
> Best,
> 
>  
> 
> Donovan
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 7/21/07, Donovan Arnold wrote:
> > The reason the US Senate is stalling on the withdraw of troops from 
Iraq
> is
> > because it knows two things;
> >
> > 1) That the people that voted for them what an end to the war now and 
what
> > the troops back home.
> >
> > and
> >
> > 2) That if the US withdraws troops from Iraq it would have negative
> > repercussions and that it vital to US interests to keep troops there.
> 
> Donovan --
> 
> The US Senate is failing to end the war because a withdrawal requires
> a 60-vote majority to break a Republican filibuster (which they have
> done every time it has come to a vote) and a 66-vote majority to break
> a Bush veto threat. In the House of Representatives, where party unity
> and the number of defectors needed is higher, breaking a Bush veto is
> almost impossible, given the tiny Democratic majority.
> 
> Thus the Republicans hold us in an unwinnable morass for yet another 
year.
> 
> -- ACS
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
>   _____  
> 
> Building a website is a piece of cake. 
> Yahoo! Small Business gives you all
> 
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48251/*http:/smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
/
> ?p=PASSPORTPLUS>  the tools to get online.
> 
> 




---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.com/