Dems vow for a 5 day work week... soon

[Go Aweigh2452]

DEM VOW ALREADY BROKEN: HOUSE SETS 4-DAY WORK WEEK
Sun Jan 07 2007 15:03:38 ET

Democrats ran to expand the work week in the House to 5 days.

But guess how long that lasted?

Not even one week!

"Culture Shock on Capitol Hill: House to Work 5 Days a Week" front-paged the WASHINGTON POST in December.

Majority leader Steny Hoyer said members of the House will be expected in the Capitol for votes each week by 6:30 p.m. Monday and will finish their business about 2 p.m. Friday.

Explained the POST: "Forget the minimum wage. Or outsourcing jobs overseas. The labor issue most on the minds of members of Congress yesterday was their own: They will have to work five days a week starting in January."

But on the morning after the night before, on the first full week of the new congress, Hoyer has pulled back from his vow!

A Hoyer press release obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT boldly declares: "Monday, January 8, 2007: The House is not in session."

Hill sources claim The House is taking Monday 'off' this week, because of the championship football game between Ohio State and the University of Florida.

And, of course, the following Monday is the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.

100 hours...starting...soon

[coolchange]

and they also made some significant strides to get the lobbyist out of dead center on the playing field...boo-hoo no more free plane rides and golf junkets (only 1 dissenting vote too...why didnt this happen during the past 6+ years??) And now maybe some oversight on the nutcase in the whitehouse.

BTW I know you have an understandable bias for the military what do you guys think of the "surge" concept being touted? (you can probably guess mine but I would really like to know what the working guys in uniform think)

[SomeSailor]

Me personally...

I think we've bogged down and likely need to concentrate on developing an exit strategy... one that shines a bright light on the issues that may affect that strategy. Only then can you justify "surging" to support.

If the exit strategy is clear, and committed, we can then talk about how many troops it's gonna take to get us there.

I've grown weary of the "cut 'n run" rhetoric. I'd like to know myself (as a taxpayer and military person), what our immediate, and long-term goals are on this. (regardless of the political timing)

[Roel Jansen]

Mike,

You left Vietnam and if you look back what was the outcome and what did it solve? Foreign policies during and after WW II were to say it political correct not the strongest points of the US.
Supporting the regimes of dictators like Pinochet, the Greek generals, Franco, Salasar, Batista, Saddam Hussein, Tjang Kai-sjek, and not to forget the support Israel and to the Taliban were choises of which some turned out to be a real disaster. But that's what we know now are documented into detail but is crying about spilt milk. Jimmy Carter, who I think was a really great President had a too realistic view at the World according to the Hawks in the Pentagon. Clinton as a President I think one of the most popular Us President out side the US could have been an European with his view how the game should be played. Even Nixon could be called a great president if he didn't made the mistake about the idea what is a democray and would play safe by allowing Watergate. The big difference between the foreign policies of the later governments lead by the two Bush administrations compared to those of Carter and Clinton are they didn't see temselves as a part of the World, but as the CEO's of the world and would change the world like the American society based on power and force.
If we reflect this on normal live is it strange people will strongly resist to it ? Not every body likes the way others live. I think it needs a Democratic president and government to end the war. There will be pain in the hearts of a lot Americans but they should realize, this war shouldn't have been fought in the first place. Let the iraqies solve their problems even with the civil war going on it would stop sometime if they see the total uselessness of it, as they have no foreign enemy any morethat botjh sides count to be responsible for.

[SomeSailor]

Very ture in many respects Roel.

However, I can't agree that we should never have gone in. The intelligence we had was flawed in many ways... but never kid yourself that there were chemical weapons developed in that country. Also... don't try to convince me he would not have eventually used them outside his country. (or given them to someone who would have used them)

He'd been doing everything within his power to export his terror. He built and USED chemical weapons. He built nuclear reactors and was planning on developing weapons grade enriched fuel. (ever wonder why a country with all that oil would even care about nuclear power generation?). He built the super-gun. (remember that?). He built (and used) a substantial network of surface-to-surface missiles (remember those?).

We need to develop an exit strategy... but I will not try to second-guess our decision to move when we did.

[Go Aweigh2452]

Some funnies (if you're not a liberal or Democrat that is) 8) ...

http://www.iboatnw.com/gallery/data/media/12/ATT00423.jpg

My overseas view of liberals...

http://www.iboatnw.com/gallery/data/media/12/ATT00419.jpg
http://www.iboatnw.com/gallery/data/media/12/ATT00409.jpg

And for the border...

http://www.iboatnw.com/gallery/data/media/12/ATT00413.jpg

Staying the course is important...

http://www.iboatnw.com/gallery/data/media/12/ATT00411.jpg

One more for our liberal friends...

http://www.iboatnw.com/gallery/data/media/12/ATT00421.jpg

[Roel Jansen]

I never thought you were such a divided Nation. Seems there to be no way to have any critsmor sceptics if it concerns your party. Fortunately I over the years met a lot of Americans republicans and democrats wholooked from a different perspective at politics and would judge things apart of party interests but looked more at merits. I can and do disagree with the party I voted for and also disagree with the others on items I think could be done in a different way. Even parties can disagree on certain subjects but are in favour for a proposal from their totaldifferent point of view.. Those cartoons just make me smile as they say a lot about the guys who draws them than about the subject.