Originally Posted By DyGDisney <<•HR 6166 EH No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the UnitedStates to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.‘‘(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3)of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.’’. >>
Originally Posted By DyGDisney <<(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an aliendetained by the United States since September 11, 2001.">>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan There was in the late 1990's<< Yes, when Bill Clinton was president. But it is interesting, this new attempt to blame just George Bush for the out of control spending. He gets his share of the blame, but in reality, the GOP controlled house and senate. So, there was nothing stopping them from controlling spending. They all chose not to, the GOP at large, not just the president. Once in control, they were no better at fiscal discipline. None.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <They all chose not to, the GOP at large, not just the president.> They all tried to cooperate with the Democrats. <Once in control, they were no better at fiscal discipline. None.> See, I don't remember one thing on which the Democrats wanted to spend less money. Except, of course, national security. And national security, is, of course, the principal reason we have a federal government.
Originally Posted By DAR Arguing which party is more fiscally responsible is like watching a porn then debating which girl was the bigger slut.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Arguing which party is more fiscally responsible is like watching a porn then debating which girl was the bigger slut.<< LOL! Exactly.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>They all tried to cooperate with the Democrats.<< LOL! The powerful, powerful Democrats, who couldn't win elections? You really have to just accept the fact that the GOP was the party in power: house, senate and the White House. Therefore, they were in the position to actually do the things they wanted to (especially after 9/11, when the national mood was "we're all in this together, don't make waves"). The GOP blew it. They revealed that the old talking point about the GOP being so much better at fiscal matters was an old talking point, and nothing more. The legacy of the Bush Administration won't be a good one. I understand why more and more GOP supporters will start to throw President Bush under the bus. They are finally starting to accept that the low approval ratings are for real (losing the house and senate should have been a wake up call, but that didn't seem to work for everyone.) So, it'll be blame it all on Bush now, attempting to gloss over the fact that the GOP ran the show all those years and were not fiscally prudent. But the "they were just trying to get along with Democrats" thing, I hope, is meant as a joke. Oh, and about the Democrats wanting to spend less on defense: It was on Mr. Rumsfeld's watch that our soldiers went into battle without body armour, etc. Another GOP stalwart, who blew it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I showed the stats, in #277.> <Your stats did not show that the Democrats only "tinkered" with the budget, while President Reagan greatly increased them. They can't show that, because it's not true.> #277 disproved your claim that "the truth is that President Reagan raised both military spending and revenues, but not by as much as the Democrats raised domestic." That was simply a falsehood, and I showed it to be so. Dabob 1, DouglasDubh 0. Meanwhile, I asked you for evidence ages ago that Reagan ever submitted a budget that the Democrats changed more than a few percentage points in overall spending. You couldn't. So the point remains - the Congresses tinkered and restored a few cuts, re-shuffled a couple of others, but essentially accepted the Reagan budgets as offered, which included larger deficits than any under Carter or Ford or Nixon... If you can show otherwise, please do. Otherwise we're at a stalemate except for your blatant falsehood above.
Originally Posted By X-san ***But the "they were just trying to get along with Democrats" thing, I hope, is meant as a joke.*** It wasn't though. That's what turns his whole shtick into a parody of his former self. He has no ability to actually communicate, only to parrot.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <#277 disproved your claim that "the truth is that President Reagan raised both military spending and revenues, but not by as much as the Democrats raised domestic."> So you admit it didn't show what you claimed earlier? It also didn't disprove my claim. Under President Reagan, military spending did go up about 140 billion. Revenue, meanwhile, went up almost 500 billion. So military spending can't be blamed. <Meanwhile, I asked you for evidence ages ago that Reagan ever submitted a budget that the Democrats changed more than a few percentage points in overall spending. You couldn't. So the point remains - the Congresses tinkered and restored a few cuts, re-shuffled a couple of others, but essentially accepted the Reagan budgets as offered, which included larger deficits than any under Carter or Ford or Nixon... If you can show otherwise, please do.> No, that point doesn't remain. You don't get to define what constitutes "tinkering". Increasing a budget by a few percentage points is much more than "tinkering". The bottom line is Democrats always adjust spending upward - they are not the party of fiscal discipline.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That's what turns his whole shtick into a parody of his former self. He has no ability to actually communicate, only to parrot.> I'm sure it seems that way to clueless idiots.
Originally Posted By X-san I would define a clueless idiot as one who never admits he's in error. Got a mirror, Douglas?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I would define a clueless idiot as one who never admits he's in error.> I would define it as someone who makes personal attacks because they aren't smart enough to understand the argument. <Got a mirror, Douglas?> Do you?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Wow, he's just calling every names now.> No, as in the past, I'm just responding in kind to those who make personal attacks rather than arguments.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Democrats always adjust spending upward - they are not the party of fiscal discipline<< That's correct. Just like Republicans.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But it's the truth. You ARE becoming a parody of yourself.> No, the truth is you have been and still are an obnoxious idiot.
