Wednesday, December 19, 2007

House sends budget bill to Bushykins


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives approved a $556 billion bill on Wednesday to fund most of the federal government through September 2008, ending a year-long budget fight with President George W. Bush by also including new money for the Iraq war.

The House gave final congressional approval to the bill, which was cleared by the Senate late on Tuesday. It now goes to Bush for his expected approval.

Here's a nice snippet...
About $1 billion would be for humanitarian and peacekeeping missions in Sudan, where violence has plagued Darfur.

See? Washington DOES care.

16 comments:

  1. No, Washington spends about a hundred times more financing weapons to kill people. They also don't do anything about the banks who hold the money of those who are committing genocide in Darfur. Either way, one billion dollars is nothing in the global economy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Heh, I was being sarcastic about Washington's attitude towards Darfur. They couldn't care less, which is a shame, because there's so much we could be doing about the conflict, but instead we're wasting time, money, resources, and human life in Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow, like omg uz guyz are soooo right. Read the Prince, and become enlightened. You write as though you already are, whilst you are not. Read Discourses on Livy and the Prince and learn how governments really operate, then we can talk. Governments don't just build weapons for the sake of killing people for pointless genocide. If you read chapter III of the Prince, you will find more information on how a successful government operates at overthrowing states in order to gain resources or a tactical advantage. What the government says is never true, and what they do needs to be looked at objectively, not emotionally and gae-ly like youz guyz do.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow, 16th/17th century literature, you're so smart. I'm so sorry I can't share my opinions until I am well versed in Machiavellian ideas. One thing I have that you apparently don't, though, is a conscience. I don't have to read Machiavelli to know that no amount of oil, or any other resource for that matter, in a foreign country is worth a human life.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow, I guess you haven't read the fucking book, moron.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A leader with a conscience for people other than his own is a hindrance.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ^ Of course I was referring to Machiavelli's theories.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Said theories being the way that government works. So Mr. Ben/enlightened 17-year-old, think before you post.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks for clearing that up, mogchr/enlightened 15 year old.

    P.S. Read the Prince. It tells you how to grow palm trees.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sorry, people. I didn't know that you can't write about politics without first reading "the Prince."

    ReplyDelete
  11. And, no, I don't consider myself enlightened. I'm just another idiot with a blog.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well if you don't know the basics of how governments derive their power and how people react to certain actions, then you cannot make educated decisions. Also, the Prince is more of a history lesson if you really read it, unlike gay John Locke.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yeah, John Locke was such a happy, happy man.

    Mogni, I'm so glad you're here to comment all the time, because no one else has the expertise that you have. I mean, how would I know anything about politics without you explaining why helping others is wrong and why an army with nukes is the best thing since sliced bread? I'll remember never to voice my opinion again without first consulting you on which book I should read so I don't sound so, in your words, "gay and retarded." At least you know you're better than everyone else just because you've read a book.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes, this is true. You've hit all of my points in one comment, thanks a ton. I don't see when I ever said helping others is wrong, but you do back up my point of armies with nukes equating to the best. Thank you for acknowledging my God-like superiority. This is my first step in becoming supreme dictator of the Principality Mognorum.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Now for the real stuff...

    I was talking about governments, not people. Morality is for the people, not governments. A Government must do things that the common person would find horrible to a) keep the populous safe, b) keep its own power, and c) exercise its power over its competition. I never said it was wrong to help people, I am talking about governments. Sure it would be nice if China and Russia would decide to be best budz with the US of A, and maybe Kim Jung-Il would team up with South Korea to create a rainbow world of peace and love. But, lets see, thats right, they don't really feel like it...You have to be realistic. Weapons keep other countries in fear of us, thats how we retain power. We wouldn't dare attack N. Korea with nuclear warheads because Russia would get pissed and nuke us. China would also get pissed from any fallout that may go over to them, so they could embargo us. Now if we didn't all have nukes, then we wouldn't have the stability of less invasions, such as the situation with the Korean war. If we didn't have them, the US probably would have pressed on with bombing North Korea with no fear of total destruction from our big pals from USSR. Just because we have weapons does not mean we intend to use them...grow a brain...

    ReplyDelete

Your comments are valued greatly. Please adhere to the decorum on the "First time here?" page. Comments that are in violation of any of the rules will be deleted without notice.

3/11 Update - No Moderation

*Non-anonymous commenting is preferred to avoid mix-ups. Anonymous comments are, at the behest of management, more likely to be deleted than non-anonymous comments.