Evangelical Disconnect

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

I wonder if that chart has any meaning as applied to Congress?Well it has a lot of meaning with regard Presidents IMHO... since Presidents are the ones who present the budget to Congress AFAIK. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Well it has a lot of meaning with regard Presidents IMHO... since Presidents are the ones who present the budget to Congress AFAIK. Correct me if I'm wrong.You're wrong.

You're wrong.Can you elaborate on where I'm wrong?

From Wikipedia on the US Federal Budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_budget)....


The Budget of the United States Government is a federal document that the President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) submits to the U.S. Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Congress). The President's budget submission outlines funding recommendations for the next fiscal year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_year), which begins on October 1st. Congressional decisions are governed by rules and legislation regarding the federal budget process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process). House and Senate Budget committees each develop budget resolutions, which provide spending limits for the House and Senate Appropriations Committees' subcommittees, which then approve individual appropriations bills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriations_bill) to allocate funding to various federal programs. After Congress approves an appropriations bill, it is sent to the President, who may sign it into law, or may veto it. A vetoed bill is sent back to Congress, which can pass it into law with a two-thirds majority in each chamber. Congress may also combine all or some appropriations bills into an omnibus reconciliation bill. In addition, the President may request and the Congress may pass supplemental appropriations bills or emergency supplemental appropriations bills.

And the next 3000 infidels may have been buried in ground zero.

You see how this logic gets you nowhere:rolleyes:Oh, you're right. But why stop at 3000? Why not say there have been 10,000,000 deaths from terrorism on domestic soil since the war, instead of none, if you are using make-believe numbers to settle your point?

Can you elaborate on where I'm wrong?

From Wikipedia on the US Federal Budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_budget)....


The Budget of the United States Government is a federal document that the President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) submits to the U.S. Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Congress). The President's budget submission outlines funding recommendations for the next fiscal year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_year), which begins on October 1st. Congressional decisions are governed by rules and legislation regarding the federal budget process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process). House and Senate Budget committees each develop budget resolutions, which provide spending limits for the House and Senate Appropriations Committees' subcommittees, which then approve individual appropriations bills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriations_bill) to allocate funding to various federal programs. After Congress approves an appropriations bill, it is sent to the President, who may sign it into law, or may veto it. A vetoed bill is sent back to Congress, which can pass it into law with a two-thirds majority in each chamber. Congress may also combine all or some appropriations bills into an omnibus reconciliation bill. In addition, the President may request and the Congress may pass supplemental appropriations bills or emergency supplemental appropriations bills.I underlined the interesting parts.

Can you elaborate on where I'm wrong?

From Wikipedia on the US Federal Budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_budget)....


The Budget of the United States Government is a federal document that the President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) submits to the U.S. Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Congress). The President's budget submission outlines funding recommendations for the next fiscal year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_year), which begins on October 1st. Congressional decisions are governed by rules and legislation regarding the federal budget process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process). House and Senate Budget committees each develop budget resolutions, which provide spending limits for the House and Senate Appropriations Committees' subcommittees, which then approve individual appropriations bills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriations_bill) to allocate funding to various federal programs. After Congress approves an appropriations bill, it is sent to the President, who may sign it into law, or may veto it. A vetoed bill is sent back to Congress, which can pass it into law with a two-thirds majority in each chamber. Congress may also combine all or some appropriations bills into an omnibus reconciliation bill. In addition, the President may request and the Congress may pass supplemental appropriations bills or emergency supplemental appropriations bills.I should've said, You're wrong....kinda. Any spending bill must originate in House of Representatives per our Constitution. Congress has requested that the President submit a proposed budget and may use that as a starting point. The end may look nothing like the proposal, and the executive branch has no budgetary control except that which is given to it by congress. The real power our president has is to veto spending bills put forward by congress. Much of the power also lies with the bureaucrats who lobby for money for their departments.

BTW...I agree with your previous comments that the government has little influence and control over short term fiscal fluctuations such as our current downturn or the tech boom. I do think it has influence over long term economic influences (50+ year trends).

I should've said, You're wrong....kinda. Any spending bill must originate in House of Representatives per our Constitution. Congress has requested that the President submit a proposed budget and may use that as a starting point. The end may look nothing like the proposal, and the executive branch has no budgetary control except that which is given to it by congress. The real power our president has is to veto spending bills put forward by congress. Much of the power also lies with the bureaucrats who lobby for money for their departments.

BTW...I agree with your previous comments that the government has little influence and control over short term fiscal fluctuations such as our current downturn or the tech boom. I do think it has influence over long term economic influences (50+ year trends).Obviously as you know, the President has veto power over the budget decided on by Congress. It requires a 2/3 majority to squash a veto. My knowledge of US government is not as extensive as yours. I was always under the impression that the President had significant influence over the budget.

I distinctly remember the Reagan years as being referred to as "Reaganomics". I also remember Dick Cheney being quoted a few years ago as saying words to the effect... "Reagan proved that budget deficits and national debt don't matter". Obviously the first six years of the G.W. Bush Presidency, he had the support of a GOP congress. And even if you remove the war spending... the deficit and burgeoning national debt is still large AFAIK. Did the Dem congress force Reagan to spend more than he wanted to?

http://bp0.blogger.com/_y8qhm316y84/Re3unLDt58I/AAAAAAAAAJs/wpLFnXJz5a8/s400/jesus-save.jpg
...

http://ouroboros.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/venn.jpg
o0o

Oh, you're right. But why stop at 3000? Why not say there have been 10,000,000 deaths from terrorism on domestic soil since the war, instead of none, if you are using make-believe numbers to settle your point?Ummmm no silly billy. I used your quote of 3000 dead from the twin tower incident...these numbers are not make believe. Go back, re-read and get back to me with a proper response, you missed the point entirely. *sigh*

Ummmm no silly billy. I used your quote of 3000 dead from the twin tower incident...these numbers are not make believe. Go back, re-read and get back to me with a proper response, you missed the point entirely. *sigh*Please state your point. What did you mean to say by citing those numbers?

You see, it's just that referring back to the original 3000 doesn't really make any sense. I am sure you'll be plenty sarcastic in your response, but let's see if you can cogently state what the hell you are talking about.

You're right, 3000 sounds bigger than 19. but what's your point?:confused:

Oops, I'm doing it. Certain people, you don't argue with.

+1. Good point.Hey cranky, what point?

Please state your point. What did you mean to say by citing those numbers?

You see, it's just that referring back to the original 3000 doesn't really make any sense. I am sure you'll be plenty sarcastic in your response, but let's see if you can cogently state what the hell you are talking about.

You're right, 3000 sounds bigger than 19. but what's your point?:confused:

Oops, I'm doing it. Certain people, you don't argue with.I assure you, the feeling is mutual

OK, you said something about how you may have already killed the next 19 osama's in a cave somewhere, then I said well from the other side of the fence, the semptember 11 attacks where the same thing, they were just pre-emptively killing you. So now you gotta get them before they get you and so on and so forth.

Point: Insecure pre-emptive strikes could go on forever couldn't they. But are you really gonna stop the terrorists forever? No. Point in case, where is Osama? Point in case, have the attacks stopped in Iraq?

I assure you, the feeling is mutual

OK, you said something about how you may have already killed the next 19 osama's in a cave somewhere, then I said well from the other side of the fence, the semptember 11 attacks where the same thing, they were just pre-emptively killing you. So now you gotta get them before they get you and so on and so forth.

Point: Insecure pre-emptive strikes could go on forever couldn't they. But are you really gonna stop the terrorists forever? No. Point in case, where is Osama? Point in case, have the attacks stopped in Iraq?:o I'm sorry, I underestimated you. I was not aware we were training terrorists in the world trade center.

Both attacks were violent and deadly, therefore they are the same? That's your point? How are they the same? "well, people died."

Maybe you should look up "pre-emptive" in the dictionary. Neither move was preemptive.

If you can't stop all attacks, then let them train at will?

:o I'm sorry, I underestimated you. I was not aware we were training terrorists in the world trade center.

Both attacks were violent and deadly, therefore they are the same? That's your point? How are they the same? "well, people died."

Maybe you should look up "pre-emptive" in the dictionary. Neither move was preemptive.

If you can't stop all attacks, then let them train at will?
Just doesn't get it does he cranky?

Just doesn't get it does he cranky?He's an argument addict. Just make your point and trust that others will see the logic. The problem is... there is enough of these people that they can elect pricks into government who appeal to "patriotism", "God bless America" and "Terror... terror... ooooohh... terror" to get their mandate from flag-waving evangelic fascist ignoramuses. That in some cases actually carry guns around in their saddle bags while riding their bikes... because they could be killed at anytime. :eek: Who think that if they fight terrorists in Iraq... then they will stop them from coming to America. And support US Presidents who think they can "change the world" and be a hero US War President. Who think that invading Iraq because they didn't give up non-existent WMDs is not preemptive war. Not all Americans are like that though. But there are enough sheep who will follow what they're told by their evangelist religious leaders that they can sway an election.

Forget it Jono on some of them seeing the light. But you may affect the opinions of a more worldly thinker who reads your posts. They just don't get it that external opinions are worth a lot more than the opinions of the sheep they mix with on a regular basis. Worth more because they aren't affected by group-think.

Hey garage sale GT... does it worry you that the majority of the world (we're talking majority... which is the concept behind "democracy") is growing in disgust and dislike at the US's unilateral, self-serving, foreign policy? Does it worry you that your unilateral "we don't care ... we'll do it anyway" policies are turning America into a disrespected and disliked Superpower across the globe?

I am a believer in the America that the founding fathers put together. The America under recent neoconservative governance has eroded a lot of those values and goodwill... and a lot of the moral high ground IMO. There's no point in being despised by the rest of the world. Even a first year MBA student could work out that public relations cost-benefit equation.

Eisenhower.. the 34th US president and a US General... warned the American people of the corporate military machine. Unfortunately it seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

The world unfortunately doesn't get a vote in electing the supposed "Leader of the Free World". Please don't be a sap like you were in the 2000 and 2004 elections and not see the forest for the trees. And I am a believer in free enterprise. The fascist administration of the last seven years has been a foreign policy joke... and farked up the fiscal balance sheet of the country as well. Conservative my ass. Unfortunately friends can't bail George W. out like they can his oil companies and baseball teams.

Jono is a smart young Aussie. Don't mock his opinion. It's telling you something.

If you can't stop all attacks, then let them train at will?How about you look past the dogmatic realist view here and examine the social and cultural issues that underline the "McWorld vs Jihad" issue (to steal a clever phrase..).

The whole 'attack or be attacked' mentality is great at drumming up patriotism with a sprinkle of scare-mongering but you always seem to end up back at square one, actually at the moment I'd say you've gone back past square one.
What are you going to do? Invade every rogue state and force a liberal democracy upon them? It just doesn't work like that.

How about you look past the dogmatic realist view here and examine the social and cultural issues that underline the "McWorld vs Jihad" issue (to steal a clever phrase..).

The whole 'attack or be attacked' mentality is great at drumming up patriotism with a sprinkle of scare-mongering but you always seem to end up back at square one, actually at the moment I'd say you've gone back past square one.
What are you going to do? Invade every rogue state and force a liberal democracy upon them? It just doesn't work like that.We didn't "attack or be attacked". We were attacked. We were already there.

We didn't "attack or be attacked". We were attacked. We were already there.
And in Iraq?

And in Iraq?
......