Originally posted by sithsaber408Do you know what it takes to override a veto? A 2/3 Majority in both houses. That means 290 votes in the House and 66 votes in the Senate, whereas the current numbers are 233-202 in the House and 51-49 in the Senate. Overriding a veto is virtually impossible without significant bipartisan support, and the Republicans under House Minority Leader John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell make that highly unlikely.
Their one attempt was vetoed, and they (even with the majority in the House and the Senate) couldn't get the veto overidden.
Byrd was right...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMjpPKslZz0
Originally posted by chithappens
Which I choose not to even respond to that at all.Anyone notice how similar this is to Wilson and his administration? Even the threat to civil liberties is there?
Anyone else know what I am talking about?
Wilson sought to keep the truth out based on recruitment operations, which implies a direct ideology of involvement predating America’s actual involvement. Beyond that, you can't compare Wilson to the current president. Perhaps based on their actions, but not a scale based execution of activities. Times have changed, as have the rules that govern the administration’s involvement and interference in our lives. We aren't persecuting people who speak out in public forums; we're reading your emails and listening to your phone conversations. There was nothing wrong with Wilson not wanting to go to war based on fallacy like the propaganda that surrounds the Lusitania...a passenger ship that was indeed carrying munitions and fair game for the Germans to strike. It would almost be responsible to assume as much. But Wilson wanted to do away with the long-held tradition of American isolationism. This event is no different than Pearl Harbour or 9/11, rallying cries to wake the "sleeping giant" that was America...and could be again. 9/11 was not handled with such care. In fact, it was handled badly to propogate the situation, not improve it....for Americans. It (Lusitania) was fed to us as a lie, to gain the tasset support of the American public. What you see is an escalation of events that must be increased, exponentially, to ensure the support of the American public. What should be more argued is why a passenger liner was assigned the duty of carrying munitions in the first place? But that was a result of the policy, not a side effect of American sentiment. And there-in lies the problem. The American public is still treated like a hinderence, rather than the whole of, by and for aspect we really occupy.
Originally posted by FacemanI love that old coot.
Byrd was right...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMjpPKslZz0
He shows remarkable amounts of clarity at times, though. Especially in that clip.
Originally posted by Devil King
Wilson sought to keep the truth out based on recruitment operations, which implies a direct ideology of involvement predating America’s actual involvement. Beyond that, you can't compare Wilson to the current president. Perhaps based on their actions, but not a scale based execution of activities. Times have changed, as have the rules that govern the administration’s involvement and interference in our lives. We aren't persecuting people who speak out in public forums; we're reading your emails and listening to your phone conversations. There was nothing wrong with Wilson not wanting to go to war based on fallacy like the propaganda that surrounds the Lusitania...a passenger ship that was indeed carrying munitions and fair game for the Germans to strike. It would almost be responsible to assume as much. But Wilson wanted to do away with the long-held tradition of American isolationism. This event is no different than Pearl Harbour or 9/11, rallying cries to wake the "sleeping giant" that was America...and could be again. 9/11 was not handled with such care. In fact, it was handled badly to propogate the situation, not improve it....for Americans. It (Lusitania) was fed to us as a lie, to gain the tasset support of the American public. What you see is an escalation of events that must be increased, exponentially, to ensure the support of the American public. What should be more argued is why a passenger liner was assigned the duty of carrying munitions in the first place? But that was a result of the policy, not a side effect of American sentiment. And there-in lies the problem. The American public is still treated like a hinderence, rather than the whole of, by and for aspect we really occupy.
That is not really true. Wilson was actually pulling a lot of crap out the bag about "commies" and "possible German spies" or even put who were just saying they didn't want to go to war - these people were to be reported directly to the Justice Department via the Creel Committee.
His anticommunist attitude was an excuse to infringe upon the rights of people (also I'm guessing you know about the hardly spoken of U.S. involvement in the Russian Revolution sending American forces as far westward as Vladivostak; this was to help the "white" Russian forces; they were also given the go ahead by Britain and France, this is hardly ever mentioned though in American sources)
Originally posted by Devil KingHe was out of the KKK more than a decade before you were born. Let bygones be bygones, for Christ's sake
There is little to be loved about a former member of the KKK, except the word former.And I suppose there is something positive to be said about someone who comes around to the right perspective, other than his political career.