The Neocons: Just Plain War Profiteers »
Posted by: Radiofreeeuropa 6 months, 3 weeks ago252 Comments Report this Story
War profiteering is an abominable act. Those who engage in it should be removed from office immediately and then prosecuted. High government officials who willfully and repeatedly allow war profiteering to occur under their supervision should also be removed from office.
Read Full Story at democraticunderground.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 252
-
0%

Radiofreeeuropa6 months, 3 weeks ago
The Bush administration is the most blatantly criminal presidential administration that our country has ever suffered through. His invasion of Iraq was completely unnecessary and irresponsible. Congress was dead wrong to give George Bush the power to go to war, this was an abdication of their constitutional responsibility. The President should have never been given unilateral power to go to war. NEVER! This is clearly unconstitutional.
Reply-
0%

BoxMonkey6 months, 3 weeks ago
While I'll agree with some of that , especially the handing over of power by Congress , don't forget Viet Nam , or any of the wars that became money machines for those in the know .Every administration had some crap going on .
Reply-
0%

Radiofreeeuropa6 months, 3 weeks ago
I agree 100%, these guys aren't the 1st but can we make them the last?!
The simple fact is that a mere clerk must not have a conflict of interest, why on earth would the very powerful be immune from this law? I believe they are not, it's just that the people who should be prosecuting are likely just as guilty.
Reply -
0%

lfergie8126 months, 3 weeks ago
Yes Vietnam was a money making machine that was ongoing through 4 presidents and the only reason it isn't still going on today is because of public protest in the late 60's and early 70's. Thousands of young men died so some people could make money with the story that if we don't fight them there, they're take over our country. Does this all sound familiar? Of course it does because the same arguments are being used today with the Iraq war solely for the purpose of making money for themselves and their political contributors.
Reply-
0%

icono16 months, 3 weeks ago
Fear of an enemy, either real or imaginary = huge profits for the defense industry.
The Cold War and subsequent 'police actions', as an example, was a major profit era for the defense industry and their affiliates.
Reply -
0%

not2needy6 months, 3 weeks ago
Rule by fear. Inhumanatarian, wrong, outright murder, and if they don't pay here they will pay eventually.
Anything for that almighty dollar.
Where are the 4 presidents that we went through Nam under? DEAD! Stealing from the citizens, becoming obscenely wealthy didn't stop them from dying, it won't buy you life!
I hope it was worth it.
Reply-
0%

donald516 months, 3 weeks ago
....I hope it wasn't worth it! Perhaps JFK really was assassinated because he had plans to pull us out of Vietnam!
Reply-
-
0%

not2needy6 months, 3 weeks ago
Now there's a thought for you.
Could be, and maybe LBJ thought he had too much to lose if that happened.
Reply-
0%

jebusofborg6 months, 3 weeks ago
And im SURE its just an oddball coincidence that LBJ was a fremason and just 1 to 2 weeks before JFK was murdered, he gave the best speach i ever heard from a leader speaking out about " let us never embrace SECRET SOCIETIES, for no good can come of them and they absolutely have NO BUSINESS in politics". to which i applaud his bravery and honesty, the likes of which we will never see again as all that have come after him and some before, were and are just puppets of the true string pullers which most people are not even aware of or are in complete denial about if you try in earnest to enlighten them for the collective good of our country and IDEALOGY of a truely free society.
Reply-
0%

MRCOFFEECAKE6 months, 3 weeks ago
Don't waste your time going there.
Free masonry is a charity.
They are the working arm (fundraising)
of the Shriners, who build children's burns centers and raise millions for sick kids.
The "reason" that masons are "secretive" is because they are comprised of humble, successful, non-partisan humanitarians who can only join after being nominated by another member in good standing. You need not be a doctor, lawyer, or wealthy person to join, but being a charitable group with great concern for reputation you must be a person of good character.
Please do not knock them just because you don't know all about them. Their "secrecy is to protect their good works and the integrity of their membership, NOT to "scheme" or "plot" any political or self-serving scandals.
My father was a Mason. I was invited to join and did so. They tend to be "older" professions who spend much time talking of their medical ailments and I couldn't relate.
Reply-
-
-
-
0%

IcCaRus6 months, 3 weeks ago
as a 3rd degree mason and the grandson of a 33rd degree mason (GW Lodge StLouis) i just wish all the conspiracy kooks would get over it! masons are no more nefarious than the Lions or Kiwanas.
if you REALLY want to know what masonry is about, befriend a mason, then ask for a petition to join a lodge. if you are accepted, you can stop speculating and learn for yourself what we are about.
Reply-
0%

jebusofborg6 months, 3 weeks ago
OK, just replace my original comment text with Counsel on Foreign Relations instead of masons if that will stop offending the masons please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces
Reply-
0%

MRCOFFEECAKE6 months, 3 weeks ago
Not to worry..Not offended, just a bit defensive and
wishing to enlighten..
Thanks for your comments..
By the way..LBJ was no bargain. he was forced on the ticket, as will be McCain's VP choice, just for precautionary reasons in case those who really call the shots in this country need to "remove him"..
If he doesn't tow their line they have quite a menu:
A) Assassination (Kennedy)
B) remove and discredit (Nixon and Clinton)
C) Mystery heart attack/food poisoning/illness
(haven't tried that one in THIS country yet)
Believe me, guys like LBJ, Ford, Quayle and Cheney were
put where they were for a reason.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%

jebusofborg6 months, 2 weeks ago
Yeah apparently they are all online chatting on this web site.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%

ProudBlueTexan6 months, 1 week ago
The only time real change happens in this and most countries is when the people take to the street en masse. I'm afraid that in the US that sort of political expression has been bred out of people and successfully replaced with fear of government (and reasonably so).
Reply
-
-
-
0%

mcgrievysr6 months, 3 weeks ago
Radiofreeeuropa----"The Bush administration is the most blatantly criminal presidential administration that our country has ever suffered through. His invasion of Iraq was completely unnecessary and irresponsible. Congress was dead wrong to give George Bush the power to go to war, this was an abdication of their constitutional responsibility. The President should have never been given unilateral power to go to war. NEVER! This is clearly unconstitutional".
You've touched upon a subject that is near and dear to me. In fact, it is my favorite rant. I agree with you completely.
Reply-
-
-
0%

traveler20006 months, 3 weeks ago
lol
Well, ..... dont't forget, but, most western, democratic countries are opposed to capital punishment...
Of course, we could make an exeption or two...
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%

Klarissa6 months, 3 weeks ago
You forgot this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/du...
As previously and extensively reviewed in these pages, Feinstein was chairperson and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee for six years, during which time she had a conflict of interest due to her husband Richard C. Blum's ownership of two major defense contractors, who were awarded billions of dollars for military construction projects approved by Feinstein.
As MILCON Chairperson, Feinstein relished the details of military construction, even micromanaging one project at the level of its sewer design.
She regularly took junkets to military bases around the world to inspect construction projects, some of which were contracted to her husband's companies, Perini Corp. and URS Corp.
Reply-
0%

mcgrievysr6 months, 3 weeks ago
Klarissa----Nobody denied that people on both sides of the aisle have gained profit from war. However, Bush's occupation of Iraq has been the most heinous offense. Are you, by posting the above link, diverting attention from Bush and his mostly former staff, or are you defending him?
Reply-
0%

bobo-in-texas6 months, 3 weeks ago
It's all a BIG KONSPIRACY!!!! We know because the democraticundergroud says so!!! Death to the neocons and the BusHitler Regime!!!
Reply-
-
0%

earthlingerer6 months, 3 weeks ago
Boo Boo was clear not to give himself away by changing the "CON" in NEOCONspiracy... as if we didn't already know.
He just knew he couldn't spoon feed us texan chickenshoot on this thread... he only commiserates with the other want-to-be republicans.
Sometimes a propeller article is worth it by the ignorance voting against it.
Reply
-
-
0%

Radiofreeeuropa6 months, 3 weeks ago
Frankly Klarrissa, you have missed the point, Lieberman is as much a supporter of this policy as anyone. You might even say 3 of the 4 remaining candidates subscribe to the PNAC way of thinking. Corruption exists on both sides of the aisle. Unlike you or bobo, I have not seen this as "party" issue. Certainly Viet Nam was presided over by 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats. I could care less what "club" you or the criminals we are talking about here belong to. All of them belong behind bars. All. However the corruption pointed out in this article is particularly heinous (and documented in many other sources if bobo cares not for this one, your search engine will give you plenty of choices) So are you saying that your OK with one party doing this, just not the other?
Reply-
0%

Beeboppin716 months, 3 weeks ago
RFE - "You might even say 3 of the 4 remaining candidates subscribe to the PNAC way of thinking."
Which of the three? I'm guessing that it would be McCain and Clinton. But I'm not sure between Huckabee and Obama which would be more likely to subscribe to the PNAC line of thinking.
Reply -
0%

donald516 months, 3 weeks ago
If you think Clinton subscribes to PNAC... then you have been listening to Faux Fox Facts too much!
On Huck: you don't recall him characterizing Dumya's foreign policy as "bunker mentality"... hardly neoconesque!
Reply-
0%

Beeboppin716 months, 3 weeks ago
Chill out!!! It was a question and a speculation as to which candidates RFE was referring to. So, which three? As for Fox... I wouldn't waste a moment of my precious time on that crappy propaganda!
Reply-
0%

donald516 months, 3 weeks ago
you chilll out with your gross assumptions! I'm tired of fools telling lies and getting away with it in a Repug world!
Reply-
0%

Beeboppin716 months, 3 weeks ago
Neither RFE or myself is a Republican. Is this how you treat people who ask questions? Let me repeat, I am not (nor have I ever been) a Republican. I was asking for further information and clarification. Asking for clarification is NOT making an assumption. You better check who you're attacking. You might just discover that your perceived enemy is actually on your side.
Reply-
-
0%

Beeboppin716 months, 3 weeks ago
For someone who detests Republicans you're certainly having no problems employing their tactics. Accusing a fellow citizen of being unpatriotic for asking for information is a page right out of their playbook. So, who's the Democrat that's taking advantage of the "Repug" world?
I was trying to guess which three that RFE meant. Do you know?
To RFE: Which three candidates were you referring to as being involved with the PNAC?
Reply-
-
-
0%

Radiofreeeuropa6 months, 3 weeks ago
Sorry I was not here earlier to answer you Beebopin.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Barack_Obama_War_ _Peace.htm
Obama Is clearly not on board.
Huckabee is not really a PNAC type to be fair, but believes the Iraq war was justified and that Sadam DID have WMDs and "hid them like easter eggs". His criticism is of the management of the invasion, but not the invasion itself.
Mrs. Clinton's voting record speaks for itself, though it is good on many things she voted for imperialism. She abdicated the constitutional congressional responsibility of being the branch which decides to go to war and gave that right to George Bush. Am I dumb enough to believe she was simply duped by GWB's brilliant oratory? I think not.
McCain- can you say 100, 1,000 year war? Yup!
To clarify, I should have said only one can be trusted to oppose the PNAC agenda.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%

Beeboppin716 months, 3 weeks ago
The difference is? Look, I don't hold anything against you as a person. It's just that I'm too much of a realist to believe that the remaining candidates are squeaky clean. We hold quite a few views in common on the current administration. But the difference is that I refuse to blindly follow any candidate, I refuse to trust anything any candidate says. I want there to be true change for this country. I'm not going to purchase their platitudes or their sales pitches. It really concerns me that Senator Clinton hasn't released her financial statements. This is the reason why I'm speculating her involvement with donors who may be associated with the PNAC. I just want her to be straight up with me. What is she hiding? If that's "unamerican" than I really don't know what to say anymore.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%

Klarissa6 months, 3 weeks ago
rfe- It isn't ok for anyone to do it. My reaction was to the title:
The Neocons: Just Plain War Profiteers.
It seems to me that the Democrats, in general, are posting articles with the word "neocon" and they are getting on the main page a lot, as if only neocons do bad things.
Reply-
0%

Mdiar6 months, 3 weeks ago
I don't know Klarissa. I personally associate some Democrats as neocons as well as some Republicans. The biggest question, in the end, is how exactly you will be getting the shaft! Well maybe on the Democratic side they could be called "neolibs" as opposed to neocons as they will try to take on the mantle of liberalism as opposed to conservatism and eventually be revealing just how un-liberal the "neolib" would be, just as Bush has shown himself to not be a conservative!
Reply -
0%

donald516 months, 3 weeks ago
Anybody who still urges we attack Iran... when the Army's Chief of Staff and the Commandant of the Marines both say our military is overtaxed and breaking... is urging a bad thing... and doesn't care about the needless loss of lives, both US and foriegn, which is a very bad thing. So, you like bad things Klarris, as if I didn't already know so!
Reply-
0%

Klarissa6 months, 3 weeks ago
/www.reute...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy.
Reply -
-
0%

MRCOFFEECAKE6 months, 3 weeks ago
Oh my Goodness, a President who actually wants to get BinLaden
instead of anyone but??
What a concept!
Reply
-
-
0%

Klarissa6 months, 3 weeks ago
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/obam-... an interview with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune published September 26, Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said he would favor the use of "surgical" missile strikes against Iran if it failed to bow to Washington's demand that it eliminate its nuclear energy program. Obama also said that, in the event of a coup that removed the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, the US should attack that nation's nuclear arsenal................
"Obama's statements underscore the Democratic Party's acceptance in principle of the "Bush Doctrine" of preventive war—a doctrine that contravenes international law and provides a rationale for US military interventions against any country deemed an obstacle to US imperialist interests around the world."
Reply-
0%

donald516 months, 3 weeks ago
Klarris, so what is your left field point? Dumya also let the greatest black marketeer of nuclear technology be pardoned in Pakistan too (Kahn). Musharaff will not survive the next election without cheating again, so all the more reason to be ready to go into Pakistan as necessary to get OBL!
If we can just get out of the debacle in Iraq... we can get back to what Dumya has taken his eye off of!
Reply-
0%

Klarissa6 months, 3 weeks ago
Donald, your democrat, Obama, will bring home the military from Iraq, then send them to Pakistan, then send missiles to Iran.
So much for improving our image and sitting down and talking to people so they love us.
I guess that will just keep the military complex going, this time with the dems in power???
Reply
-
-
0%

MRCOFFEECAKE6 months, 3 weeks ago
Are you really THAT gullible?
If Bush actually meant ANY of what he said then the US would have done EVERYTHING necessary to capture BinLaden, not stand around like a cowboy and talk tough so stupid people actually buy in to the scam..
Did you buy ALL of it, or is there still a little left that you haven't swallowed??
Reply
-
-
-
0%

Shadowolf6 months, 2 weeks ago
At what point did you stop smearing Liberals???That is all you and your buddy Aniokly are known for!!!
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%

MRCOFFEECAKE6 months, 3 weeks ago
First time you made any sense here. Maybe one good day io church helped you grow a conscience!@
It's about time you stopped defending the bad guys and buying into all of their fears!
hallelujah!!
Amen!!
Reply
-
-
0%

injest6 months, 3 weeks ago
"mcgrievysr----Nobody denied that people on both sides of the aisle have gained profit from war."
Really? So why is the title of this "op-ed" "The Neocons: Just Plain War Profiteers"
Are you claiming that Dems are Neocons?
Sorry but glaring omissions like Sen. Feinstein or Soros relegate this "op-ed" to just another poor attempt at propaganda.
Reply-
-
0%

injest6 months, 3 weeks ago
Soros?
The topic is "War Profiteers".Soros used his Moveon minions (AKA useful idiots) to demonize Halliburton to drive down the stock price of Halliburton.
Are you the one person who didn't notice the drop of "Halliburton" stories late 2006?
George Soros Buys Halliburton Stock
In a delicious irony, Foreign Policy magazine reports that SEC documents reveal that George Soros bought 1.9 million shares of Halliburton stock in the fourth quarter of 2006.
Soros gave more than $20 million to "527" organizations in the 2004 election, many of which used anti-Halliburton bashing as a rallying cry for the anti-war Left.
"The latest move by globe trotting, hyper-liberal billionaire George Soros borders on being too much.... Soros, of course, is the dean of Democratic money giving. And Halliburton, of course, is the company that embodies everything the Democrats see as evil. Dick Cheney is its former chief, for goodness' sake".
Reply-
0%

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
I asked if Soros was pushing for us to invade Iraq. You didn't answer that question.
Soros doesn't make U.S. policy. And he didn't argue for the government to perform actions that benefit him through his stock ownership.
In other words, he has no conflict of interest. That's what the story's about. Remember?
Reply-
0%

injest6 months, 3 weeks ago
Beau7890
"In other words, he has no conflict of interest. That's what the story's about. Remember?"
The story is about war "profiteering" and nothing else. It's along the same line as price gouging during an emergency like fire, flood, and earthquake. Those who engage in it are no more responsible for the emergency but they are taking advantage of it.
You can't separate these actions along party lines.
"War profiteering is an abominable act."
This IS the 1st sentence and that IS the most important sentence.
Reply-
0%

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
Um, no, if you read beyond the first sentence, you'll see that the gist of the article is about profiteers who have a conflict of interest. That is, they are in a position both to make policy and profit from it. And there's much evidence that they have done just that.
Do you make no distinction between making profits and profiteering? The companies that support our military efforts are privately run.
I've never said there's no need for these companies to exist. But they should refrain from influencing our foreign policy.
Reply-
0%

Klarissa6 months, 3 weeks ago
Beau, did you know --
There are companies that make items necessary for for the military in case of war, but they may go bankrupt in time of peace. Think of the automobile makers during WW11 who made tanks. They converted back to automobiles.
The airplane companies have the only equipment to made airplanes. In time of war they are necessary.
When these types of companies are in financial trouble the government "finds" a contract to keep them going.
Reply-
-
0%

Klarissa6 months, 3 weeks ago
Donald, I give you such good things to comment on. Must make your day worthwhile lolol
Reply -
0%

MRCOFFEECAKE6 months, 3 weeks ago
Her "distractive" and irrelevant comment serves as a smoke screen effort to defend the indefensible.
NOT even a feeble effort.
That's almost as dumb as saying the poor Germans in the swastika making industry needed something to do from 1933 to 1945, so the war was a kind effort to help them survive.
How dumb!!
But, we can't expect any substance from those in too deep..
Just laugh and go on..
Reply
-
-
0%

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
Do you really think these companies would be in financial trouble without war?
We've "suffered" through peaceful times before, and the government kept giving them money to make those essential tools for the military. The military is to be kept in a state of constant readiness, and the government funds that. (And rightly so.)
None of that has anything to do with large stakeholders in those companies using their influence as supposedly impartial elected or appointed public officials to increse their profits. That's profiteering, and it is or should be a crime.
Reply-
-
0%

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
What I meant is that the government keeps the companies dealing in military technology in business during peacetime by buying components and technology that are necessary to keep the military ready, and that I don't have a problem with being ready. There should be no extraneous contracts that are given to keep those companies in business.
Reply-
0%

Lurch6 months, 2 weeks ago
We have military bases/presences in 140 countries.
That`s about 130 too many.
If we brought the rest back, we would be ready for a lot more and the tens of billions would stay in the US to boost our economy.
Boost our economy while cutting back on govt expenses and while making less enemies. We`ve done worse.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%

donald516 months, 3 weeks ago
the topic is who argued for war to get profits in the end... which obviously doesn't include Feinstein or Soros, you turkey!
Dems like to make profits too, but not at the useless loss of American or foreign lives which makes no difference to the unscrupulous neocons, including you too - Injest!
Reply -
0%

miklkit6 months, 3 weeks ago
You want halliburton stories?
Here's one.
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/fema.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2778262...
Halliburton built these concentration camps. They have never made a secret of it. In fact you can go to their web site and read all about them.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%

lfergie8126 months, 3 weeks ago
Yes Klarissa, Feinstein's involvement has been very well documented by the Bush supporters on these pages but how much has been reported by the press concerning the profits of appointed members of this administration. Feinstein can be voted out of office but the appointed members will never be brought to justice.
In either case, promoting war to make money from the death of our young men is despicable and anyone that tries to justify it is just as bad as they are.
Reply-
ScrimshawComment removed: User banned.17 Replies
-
0%

lfergie8126 months, 3 weeks ago
If the left as you call them had a clear 2/3rds majority, I'm sure that you wouldn't be asking what the left is doing about it. As long as the Republicans have the ability to block any bill from vote that they don't like and the president with his veto power, it will remain that way.
Reply-
-
0%

Ratskii6 months, 3 weeks ago
To the tune of Dona, Dona, Dona, Dona,
Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
aniokly hasn't got a clue.
he just likes to name call,
sometimes I will do that too.
Reply -
0%

lfergie8126 months, 3 weeks ago
It's because of idiots like you that I stopped reading these boards. Thanks for the reminder.
Reply -
0%

exgeologist6 months, 3 weeks ago
Aniokly,
No clue on national security? The Democrats have always been far more proactive and aggressive on national security matters than the repubs. Democrats kept us safe. Unlike the Party of 911.
For instance:
Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy were ALL Democrats. They declared the following wars respectively: WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War. Truman dropped the A-bombs on Japan and Kennedy prevailed in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Lyndon Baines Johnson escalated bombing in Vietnam, and ordered the invasion of Cambodia.
AGAIN,.....ALL WERE DEMOCRATS!!!!
If you have failed to detect these facts, then our school systems are failing America,....and so are you!!!
Reply-
-
0%

MRCOFFEECAKE6 months, 3 weeks ago
We all agree that Ahmandenajhad is a creep because he defends a revisionist view of the Holocaust. Well congratulations
Klarissa, you and he can attend revisionist conventions together.
Your feeble effort to re-write Kennedy's legacy is disgusting and no less reprehensible than what the present crazy leader of Iran is doing.
I'm beginning to believe that you just enjoy attention and perhaps no one else will talk to you!
The rationale behind your foolish comments are making sense now.
Reply
-
-
0%

Mdiar6 months, 3 weeks ago
I always felt Wilson was the wrong person for the job. He was an academic, and unfortunately we needed a President who knew politics to get the League of Nations through. The rest were perfect for the times... with the exception of Johnson, I think. Sometimes I wonder what the GOP would of been like today if Wilson had lost in 1912 to Taft or if Taft had lost the nomination to Roosevelt! Possibly a modern day progressive Republican Party, you never know. Ahhh well... can't cry over spilled milk! All I can say is... Bull Moose '08!
Reply
-
-
0%

MRCOFFEECAKE6 months, 3 weeks ago
Scare tactics so early on in the election season?
save it for November. It's old, divisive and only fools believe it. Problem is Republicans know how to get the "moron" vote.. Thanks for the early "fools speak"..
You forgot to say "if you don't like it, move to another country"..
That's how you elitist jerks have been talking for 5 years..
What happened, lose your swagger??
NO Democrat has EVER surrendered, you silly person.
(unless you mean Gerald Ford)..Ahem..he was a Republican!
Reply -
0%

Lurch6 months, 3 weeks ago
>They have no clue about National Security.
You mean the same Dems who ignored the "dire" warnings about impending AQ attacks on US soil for several weeks because they required a month off after working for a full six months in a row. You mean those National Security wimpy Dems?
Or do you mean the Dems who let the Taliban, AQ, and OBL go? Or do you mean the Dems who fired the military experts and instead invaded a sovereign nation knowing but not caring that they had too few troops to secure the peace.
What`s the names of those Dems again...
Reply
-
-
0%

injest6 months, 3 weeks ago
lfergie812 "If the left as you call them had a clear 2/3rds majority"
A clear 2/3rds majority? Are you saying without a 2/3rds majority the Dems are unable to lead? That the Dem leadership is so lame that in order to get anything done they need 66.6% majority?
Although it is true that the current Dems are THAT lame it has not always been so.
The 2/3rds dodge is used to "Placate" people who are to dumb to do the math and look it up. A 2/3rds majority is 66.6 % (in the Senate) or 67 to end any questions.
No party has had a 2/3rds majority in the Senate since 89th Congress (1965-1967)
Majority Party: Democrat (68 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (32 seats)
The 2/3rds majority almost never happens yet the country goes on. Please come up with
-
-
-
-
