PDA

View Full Version : Will the Democratic run Senate Vote against Obama over Syria?



genglandoh
09-07-2013, 10:57 AM
I cannot remember in the past 2 years where the Senate voted to support Obama.
Recent examples are
1. The Gun control bill was voted down.
2. Stopping the Sequestration was also voted down.

This time the vote is for supporting Obama on Syria.
The democrat leadership had an option to treat this vote as a special resolution and require only 51 votes to pass.
But instead Harry Reid and his gang decided to treat this as a normal resolution requiring 60 votes for cloture then the 51 vote to pass the bill.

Do you think Obama has enough personal credibility to get 60 votes for cloture?
After all he has not broken his word in the pass 10 minutes.

News story.
Syria War Resolution Will Require 60 Votes in Senate
“This joint resolution will be treated like any other joint resolution,” a Senate Democratic leadership aide tells The Daily Beast. “That means we’ll have to move to proceed to the measure, and without consent it could face a 60-vote cloture vote on the motion to proceed.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/04/syria-war-resolution-will-require-60-votes-in-senate.html

Paul Pless
09-07-2013, 11:00 AM
Fart.

LeeG
09-07-2013, 11:10 AM
Reply Hazy
Try Again

ljb5
09-07-2013, 11:16 AM
The Gun Control bill was voted down 54-46. I.e., it failed even though it had a clear majority of the votes. (The actual support was 55-45, but Reid had to vote 'no' for procedural reasons, not because he was against it.)

The Senate passed the immigration bill 68-32.

The Senate passed the student loan bill with 81 votes.

Apparently you don't know how the Senate works. When the minority party can obstruct any bill with a minority of votes, you cannot describe it as 'Democratic run.'

ccmanuals
09-07-2013, 11:18 AM
Wouldn't a no vote be a failure of the country to stand against the use of WMD? Why is the failure of Congress, repeatedly, for the last 6 years to do it's job a failure of the President? Why do you think the approval rating of the Congress is now in the friends and family numbers?

Osborne Russell
09-07-2013, 11:26 AM
Do you think Obama has enough personal credibility to get 60 votes for cloture?


For the President to be responsible for everything that happens he would have to be king.

LeeG
09-07-2013, 12:12 PM
For the President to be responsible for everything that happens he would have to be king.

Or









The anti christ !

David G
09-07-2013, 12:44 PM
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26271.html)
Friedrich von Schiller (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Friedrich_von_Schiller/) (1759 - 1805)

bobbys
09-07-2013, 01:05 PM
Wouldn't a no vote be a failure of the country to stand against the use of WMD? Why is the failure of Congress, repeatedly, for the last 6 years to do it's job a failure of the President? Why do you think the approval rating of the Congress is now in the friends and family numbers?.

Its a 2 way street, Obama also had a responsibility to work with Congress, Over stepping them does not induce cooperation. Now he comes hat in hand perhaps to shift off his Red line remark while stating he does not have to abide by their vote..

ljb5
09-07-2013, 02:01 PM
.

Its a 2 way street, Obama also had a responsibility to work with Congress, Over stepping them does not induce cooperation. Now he comes hat in hand perhaps to shift off his Red line remark while stating he does not have to abide by their vote..

So you complain when he exercises his authority and you complain when he asks Congress for authorization.

Notice a pattern?

genglandoh
09-07-2013, 03:42 PM
The Gun Control bill was voted down 54-46. I.e., it failed even though it had a clear majority of the votes. (The actual support was 55-45, but Reid had to vote 'no' for procedural reasons, not because he was against it.)

The Senate passed the immigration bill 68-32.

The Senate passed the student loan bill with 81 votes.

Apparently you don't know how the Senate works. When the minority party can obstruct any bill with a minority of votes, you cannot describe it as 'Democratic run.'

Thank you for pointing out the 2 bills where the Senate did support Obama.

TomF
09-07-2013, 03:50 PM
Do you think Obama has enough personal credibility to get 60 votes for cloture?As you are well aware, Obama's personal credibility has nothing to do with whether 60 votes will be there. Obama could indeed be The Messiah (as various Rep supporters are happy to call him), and there would still be zip support from the Reps.

This has nothing to do with Obama's personal credibility, and everything to do with the vulnerability of moderate Republicans to Tea Party challenges in their next primaries.

But then, you knew that.

bobbys
09-07-2013, 05:05 PM
As you are well aware, Obama's personal credibility has nothing to do with whether 60 votes will be there. Obama could indeed be The Messiah (as various Rep supporters are happy to call him), and there would still be zip support from the Reps.

This has nothing to do with Obama's personal credibility, and everything to do with the vulnerability of moderate Republicans to Tea Party challenges in their next primaries.

But then, you knew that..

If the president states you can vote but im not going to abide by that vote Why would you not asses the value and repercussions of your vote. So in effect you are correct in then its every man out for himself..

However you left out Democrats in your rush to pin this on Republicans ..

If they "know" he is not going to go with the vote , go with a anti war vote anyways, Save your skin but let the republicans hang, Just get enough to pass the Senate..

In Simpler terms he already threw the ball game....

It has EVERYTHING to do with his credibility.

bobbys
09-07-2013, 05:11 PM
So you complain when he exercises his authority and you complain when he asks Congress for authorization.

Notice a pattern?.

He said before he does not need Congress.

Now he states he does not have to go with the vote

Notice a Pattern?.

By the way i did not complain he went to Congress i only pointed out he said he did not have to abide by their vote.

Please Stop your juvenile debating tactic of putting words in others mouths .

ljb5
09-07-2013, 05:36 PM
.

He said before he does not need Congress.

Now he states he does not have to go with the vote

Notice a Pattern?.

By the way i did not complain he went to Congress i only pointed out he said he did not have to abide by their vote.

Please Stop your juvenile debating tactic of putting words in others mouths .

The mistake that both you and geng are making is in asserting that the Senate will vote either for or against Obama.

It might occur to you (and I hope it occurs to them) that they should vote for what they think is right and ought to be done.

I've grown weary of every issue being framed as "pro-Obama" or "Anti-Obama." Maybe some day we'll realize that all these issue out there (Syria, Gun Violence, Health Care, Immigration, etc...) exist outside of an independent of Mr. Obama.

Obama didn't create any of these problems. Refusing to deal with them is a very, very poor way to rebel against him.

TomF
09-07-2013, 06:10 PM
It has EVERYTHING to do with his credibility.It has everything to do with the stated intention of the Reps to make Obama fail. And the inability of any moderate Reps to vote their consciences because they're concerned about keeping their primary nominations intact were they to do so.

This is not about Obama's credibility. As with every other single issue since Obama's first electoral victory, it's about hatred by one faction of the Reps, and the incapacity of the remainder of the Reps to break away from the hold that group has on them.

To be clear - were Congress representatives actually able to vote their minds on this issue, we'd probably see some from each party voting each way. In the current climate, we'll probably see some Dems voting against Obama's position, but no Reps voting for it. That will be spun as Obama's inability even to command his own caucus, of course ... rather than the inability of Republicans to vote their actual minds.

Cuyahoga Chuck
09-07-2013, 06:16 PM
.

Its a 2 way street, Obama also had a responsibility to work with Congress, Over stepping them does not induce cooperation. Now he comes hat in hand perhaps to shift off his Red line remark while stating he does not have to abide by their vote..

Cooperation? Now? Kinda late don't you think? A large number of House Republicans hold their seats because they have shown their electorate they will oppose him even if he was comapigning for motherhood.
And to take adifferent tack, why should a Harvard educated, magna cum laude degree holder cow-tow to a bunch of idiots who want to impeach him for being an alien, muslim, pinko, socialist,?

PhaseLockedLoop
09-07-2013, 06:16 PM
Obama didn't create any of these problems. Refusing to deal with them is a very, very poor way to rebel against him.

What do you mean?

TomF
09-07-2013, 06:26 PM
What do you mean?I agree. Refusing to cooperate with Obama to address problems Obama's not created but to which Washington somehow must respond is IMO unethical, but it's a uniquely effective way to rebel against him. If you're not concerned with the actual impact such enforced inactivity has on the citizenry.

ccmanuals
09-07-2013, 08:28 PM
.

Its a 2 way street, Obama also had a responsibility to work with Congress, Over stepping them does not induce cooperation. Now he comes hat in hand perhaps to shift off his Red line remark while stating he does not have to abide by their vote..

Doesn't Congress also have a responsibility to work with the President? Kinda tough to do if you are afraid to go to the WH for a dinner for fear the tparty will primary you.

hanleyclifford
09-07-2013, 08:36 PM
Has anyone noticed that public opinion is running strong against the President? But of course the Verybigs know stuff we don't know so we should just trust them.

ccmanuals
09-07-2013, 08:38 PM
Has anyone noticed that public opinion is running strong against the President? But of course the Verybigs know stuff we don't know so we should just trust them.

I don't know about "we" but I trust him. You are going to have to decide for yourself.

hanleyclifford
09-07-2013, 08:48 PM
I don't know about "we" but I trust him. You are going to have to decide for yourself. I was actually refering to the Senate, the subject of this thread.

ljb5
09-07-2013, 09:29 PM
Doesn't Congress also have a responsibility to work with the President?

Not exactly. But they have a responsibility to do the right thing.

There are more than 22 Million people living in Syria. Not even one of them is President Obama.

Maybe they need and deserve our help.... maybe they don't.

But to base the entire decision on whether or not we like Mr. Obama or believe that he has demonstrated sufficient deference without being obsequious is to tie the lives and fates of millions of people to the petty whims of partisan politics.

This isn't about Obama. Not all decisions are based on whether you are "pro-Obama" or "anti-Obama".

bobbys
09-08-2013, 02:08 AM
Doesn't Congress also have a responsibility to work with the President? Kinda tough to do if you are afraid to go to the WH for a dinner for fear the tparty will primary you..

The President chose to alienate congress now he comes hat in hand.

You libs always want to blame congress and shut a blind eye towards Obama's responsibility.

Great Presidents worked with the other party..

But Hey how did Democrats treat President Bush?.

Now its all Congress needs to rubber stamp anything obama sez and just forget democrats refused to work with bush.

bobbys
09-08-2013, 02:15 AM
Cooperation? Now? Kinda late don't you think? A large number of House Republicans hold their seats because they have shown their electorate they will oppose him even if he was comapigning for motherhood.
And to take adifferent tack, why should a Harvard educated, magna cum laude degree holder cow-tow to a bunch of idiots who want to impeach him for being an alien, muslim, pinko, socialist,?.

That attitude shows exactly the way some libs view politics.

If anything else i thank you for showing the disdain Obama shows Congress.

Now he comes hat in hand expecting flowers will be thrown at his feet..

However most view him as a idiot for his red line remark, listen any sane person does not want war for egg on face..

he is not "cow towing" he is arrogant by stating he will not abide by any vote . e

bobbys
09-08-2013, 02:21 AM
It has everything to do with the stated intention of the Reps to make Obama fail. And the inability of any moderate Reps to vote their consciences because they're concerned about keeping their primary nominations intact were they to do so.

This is not about Obama's credibility. As with every other single issue since Obama's first electoral victory, it's about hatred by one faction of the Reps, and the incapacity of the remainder of the Reps to break away from the hold that group has on them.

To be clear - were Congress representatives actually able to vote their minds on this issue, we'd probably see some from each party voting each way. In the current climate, we'll probably see some Dems voting against Obama's position, but no Reps voting for it. That will be spun as Obama's inability even to command his own caucus, of course ... rather than the inability of Republicans to vote their actual minds..

Every time you post you find fault only in Republicans.

However Democrats are opposed as well.

In Fact McCain and Graham are painting their faces with war paint and chomping at the bits to bomb the hell outta people with the prez, so your position reps are not with the prez hold no water..

I can find fault in our rinos your thinking is always on party lines

bobbys
09-08-2013, 02:28 AM
The mistake that both you and geng are making is in asserting that the Senate will vote either for or against Obama.

It might occur to you (and I hope it occurs to them) that they should vote for what they think is right and ought to be done.

I've grown weary of every issue being framed as "pro-Obama" or "Anti-Obama." Maybe some day we'll realize that all these issue out there (Syria, Gun Violence, Health Care, Immigration, etc...) exist outside of an independent of Mr. Obama.

Obama didn't create any of these problems. Refusing to deal with them is a very, very poor way to rebel against him..

I disagree Obama shot his mouth off with the red line, As said before perhaps that encouraged the use of Chemical weapons.

He also went into Afghanistan ad he campaigned on the "right" war..

How many wars do we need because of his inexperience in foreign policy and to cover politically for his mis haps..

However i do not blame you for saying everything happened "independent" of him.

What else could you say?

genglandoh
09-08-2013, 05:42 AM
There are will be 3 votes in the senate
1. Committee Vote 50% needed.
This is a very easy vote because they are only voting to more the resolution forward.
2. Cloture Vote 60 votes needed.
Cloture is just ending the debate on the floor and having the final vote.
Again this is a very easy vote because they are only voting to more the resolution forward
3. The final vote for or against the resolution (the important vote) 51 votes needed

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 10 to 7
Total of 18 members (10 Democrat and 8 Republican)
7 Democrats voted yes 70%
3 Republicans voted yes 43%
The senate is 52 Democrats, 2 Independents and 46 Republicans.
Assuming the Independents vote the same as the Democrats a simple predication for the next vote would be
54*.70=37.8
46*.43=19.78
Total of 58 and 60 is needed.

It is interesting that 3 Democrats would not even support Obama to move the resolution forward.

hokiefan
09-08-2013, 05:57 AM
There are will be 3 votes in the senate
1. Committee Vote 50% needed.
This is a very easy vote because they are only voting to more the resolution forward.
2. Cloture Vote 60 votes needed.
Cloture is just ending the debate on the floor and having the final vote.
Again this is a very easy vote because they are only voting to more the resolution forward
3. The final vote for or against the resolution (the important vote) 51 votes needed

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 10 to 7
Total of 18 members (10 Democrat and 8 Republican)
7 Democrats voted yes 70%
3 Republicans voted yes 43%
The senate is 52 Democrats, 2 Independents and 46 Republicans.
Assuming the Independents vote the same as the Democrats a simple predication for the next vote would be
54*.70=37.8
46*.43=19.78
Total of 58 and 60 is needed.

It is interesting that 3 Democrats would not even support Obama to move the resolution forward.

Well there you go just making stuff up.

Personally, I hope the Senate votes no 100-0. But we know that McCain and Graham want desparately to bomb somebody, so the best we can hope for is 98-2.

Bobby

hanleyclifford
09-08-2013, 09:07 AM
Well there you go just making stuff up.

Personally, I hope the Senate votes no 100-0. But we know that McCain and Graham want desparately to bomb somebody, so the best we can hope for is 98-2.

Bobby McCain has some bombing experience, but is opposed to torture...go figure.

Rich VanValkenburg
09-08-2013, 09:39 AM
Consider this, he has shown his contempt for congress and an apparent contempt for the U.S. constitution. If he takes us to war, and this one will be serious with both the Russians and the Chinese moving warships to shadow our own, he risks waking the terrorist sleeper cells in this country who will retaliate. When that happens, he'll declare a state of emergency and impose marshal law. That move suspends constitutional law and also suspends elections until he thinks the emergency is over. That would potentially put the Dems in power for life.

Is that what you want?

Gerarddm
09-08-2013, 10:09 AM
TomF, there are no moderate Republicans. Lincoln Chaffee turned Independent, then Democrat.

Mr Vanvalkenburg's mental hemmorhage is a regressive wet dream.

What I want is for regressives to slouch away.

hanleyclifford
09-08-2013, 10:17 AM
TomF, there are no moderate Republicans. Lincoln Chaffee turned Independent, then Democrat.

Mr Vanvalkenburg's mental hemmorhage is a regressive wet dream.

What I want is for regressives to slouch away. There are few moderate Bilge rats.:)

Cuyahoga Chuck
09-08-2013, 10:20 AM
.

The President chose to alienate congress now he comes hat in hand.

You libs always want to blame congress and shut a blind eye towards Obama's responsibility.

Great Presidents worked with the other party..

But Hey how did Democrats treat President Bush?.

Now its all Congress needs to rubber stamp anything obama sez and just forget democrats refused to work with bush.

History ain't your long suit is it, bubba?
One of the greatest men of the twentieth century, Franklin Roosevelt, said this about his opponents in the congress.
"I welcome their hatred"
If you doubt me here it is live.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9yoZHs6PsU

hokiefan
09-08-2013, 10:21 AM
Consider this, he has shown his contempt for congress and an apparent contempt for the U.S. constitution. If he takes us to war, and this one will be serious with both the Russians and the Chinese moving warships to shadow our own, he risks waking the terrorist sleeper cells in this country who will retaliate. When that happens, he'll declare a state of emergency and impose marshal law. That move suspends constitutional law and also suspends elections until he thinks the emergency is over. That would potentially put the Dems in power for life.

Is that what you want?

Someone needs a new supply of tin foil hats...

Cuyahoga Chuck
09-08-2013, 10:31 AM
Consider this, he has shown his contempt for congress and an apparent contempt for the U.S. constitution. If he takes us to war, and this one will be serious with both the Russians and the Chinese moving warships to shadow our own, he risks waking the terrorist sleeper cells in this country who will retaliate. When that happens, he'll declare a state of emergency and impose marshal law. That move suspends constitutional law and also suspends elections until he thinks the emergency is over. That would potentially put the Dems in power for life.

Is that what you want?

Things may have been bad in Michigan but not that bad.
We live in one of the best places on earth to live. We live in the richest most powerful country that ever existed. If you really believe in the fantasy you posted above you need help.

Rich VanValkenburg
09-08-2013, 10:40 AM
In 2007 with Bush & Cheney waving a barrel at everyone, CNN, as well as some mainstream media, was all up in arms about Bush doing the same thing I worry about with B.O. He's been doing an end-run around the constitution and he admitted that if congress won't help him, he'll do it himself. duh..illegal. Already, nothing gets by AG Holder unless it's in his interests. Aren't you paying attention?

ccmanuals
09-08-2013, 10:46 AM
In 2007 with Bush & Cheney waving a barrel at everyone, CNN, as well as some mainstream media, was all up in arms about Bush doing the same thing I worry about with B.O. He's been doing an end-run around the constitution and he admitted that if congress won't help him, he'll do it himself. duh..illegal. Already, nothing gets by AG Holder unless it's in his interests. Aren't you paying attention?

Maybe you can provide some examples?

Rich VanValkenburg
09-08-2013, 11:08 AM
Raise $6 Billion in new taxes (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/obama_celling_out_UtCvorWrEsMDxEheVWEmKO)to put WiFi in public schools across America. Rather than waste his time with the Constitution and Congress, Obama is going straight to the FCC (http://www.fcc.gov/) to lobby for the new taxes. The new tax will apply to every American who uses a cellphone. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution clearly states (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html): The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes.

He's already singled out several groups that he states he will exempt from the ACA laws.

He said he wasn’t going to wait for Congress (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/congress/), but that he had administrative authorities and that it was time to start utilizing those more effectively and in a more concerted way.

I could go on but my hand is seizing up. One thing I'm convinced about, if he shoots at Syria, they and their allies will shoot back. If he ignores a congressional defeat this week and attacks anyway, he should be removed. Ever see the movie "Seven Days in May"? The back story is similar- an out of control president that is acting on his own.

ljb5
09-08-2013, 11:14 AM
But Hey how did Democrats treat President Bush?

Can you name one single issue that the Democrats blocked Bush on?

He got his tax cuts.

He got his deficit spending.

He got his two wars.

He authorized torture.

He got his Medicare expansion.

He got his No Child Left Behind.

He got his prison in Guantanamo Bay.

He got his AIG bailout.

He passed TARP.

I honestly think you guys were stoned or in a coma for the entire Bush presidency. On the one hand, you seem to have completely forgotten who passed TARP and the Automakers' bailout. On the other hand, you seem to have forgotten that the Democrats paid Bush great respect and deference (probably way too much respect and deference).... not necessarily because they liked him or agreed with him.... but because they felt that working with the President is a necessary part of their job.

Five years later, you try to act like they blocked him. But that's not what actually happened.

David G
09-08-2013, 11:22 AM
Is sloppiness in speech caused by ignorance or apathy? I don't know and I don't care.

(http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/631.html)
William Safire (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/William_Safire/) (or was it bobbys???)

Rich VanValkenburg
09-08-2013, 11:35 AM
Things may have been bad in Michigan but not that bad.
We live in one of the best places on earth to live. We live in the richest most powerful country that ever existed. If you really believe in the fantasy you posted above you need help.

I hope I'm wrong but actions speak louder than words.

ccmanuals
09-08-2013, 11:42 AM
Raise $6 Billion in new taxes (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/obama_celling_out_UtCvorWrEsMDxEheVWEmKO)to put WiFi in public schools across America. Rather than waste his time with the Constitution and Congress, Obama is going straight to the FCC (http://www.fcc.gov/) to lobby for the new taxes. The new tax will apply to every American who uses a cellphone. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution clearly states (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html): The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes.

He's already singled out several groups that he states he will exempt from the ACA laws.

He said he wasn’t going to wait for Congress (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/congress/), but that he had administrative authorities and that it was time to start utilizing those more effectively and in a more concerted way.

I could go on but my hand is seizing up. One thing I'm convinced about, if he shoots at Syria, they and their allies will shoot back. If he ignores a congressional defeat this week and attacks anyway, he should be removed. Ever see the movie "Seven Days in May"? The back story is similar- an out of control president that is acting on his own.


Ok, so you got nothing. Thought so.

ccmanuals
09-08-2013, 11:44 AM
Can you name one single issue that the Democrats blocked Bush on?

He got his tax cuts.

He got his deficit spending.

He got his two wars.

He authorized torture.

He got his Medicare expansion.

He got his No Child Left Behind.

He got his prison in Guantanamo Bay.

He got his AIG bailout.

He passed TARP.

I honestly think you guys were stoned or in a coma for the entire Bush presidency. On the one hand, you seem to have completely forgotten who passed TARP and the Automakers' bailout. On the other hand, you seem to have forgotten that the Democrats paid Bush great respect and deference (probably way too much respect and deference).... not necessarily because they liked him or agreed with him.... but because they felt that working with the President is a necessary part of their job.

Five years later, you try to act like they blocked him. But that's not what actually happened.

LJ, I can think of one thing. They blocked his attempt to privatize social security. When you consider the crash of the markets in 2008 one could only imagine what would have happened had Bush been successful.

hanleyclifford
09-08-2013, 11:51 AM
Whichever way the Senate and House go, the result may be to return war power to the Congress unless of course Obama just attacks without authorization in which case the power of the Presidency will be strengthed even further (if he gets away with it, of course).

leikec
09-08-2013, 01:59 PM
There are few moderate Bilge rats.:)

Not true at all.

jeff C

David G
09-08-2013, 02:11 PM
There are few moderate Bilge rats.:)


Is sloppiness in speech caused by ignorance or apathy? I don't know and I don't care.

(http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/631.html)
William Safire (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/William_Safire/) (or was it bobbys????)

Or was it hc???? As is far too often the case.

S.V. Airlie
09-08-2013, 02:30 PM
Ok, so you got nothing. Thought so.I think the Rick actually has something. You don't think it's anything but, for some who think about a foot in the door, IT IS SOMETHING!

bobbys
09-08-2013, 02:33 PM
Or was it hc???? As is far too often the case..

HHHMMM i dunno care?

David W Pratt
09-08-2013, 02:41 PM
The Prez has not presented any credible evidence that Assad ordered the gas attack. They say they they knew the attack was coming three days before, yet they said nothing.
And I haven't heard any reason why he wants to bomb them.
Is it possible that the rebels did it?
His lack of diplomatic skills have resulted in worse relations with England, France, Israel, China, Russia, than when he was elected.

S.V. Airlie
09-08-2013, 02:43 PM
It's the New Diplomacy with boots on.

ljb5
09-08-2013, 03:23 PM
His lack of diplomatic skills have resulted in worse relations with England, France, Israel, China, Russia, than when he was elected.

Do you remember Freedom fries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries)?

Bush's relationship with Tony Blair is why the Brits hate him. It's why Blair's popularity was less than 30% when he resigned.

pefjr
09-08-2013, 03:33 PM
LJ, I can think of one thing. They blocked his attempt to privatize social security. When you consider the crash of the markets in 2008 one could only imagine what would have happened had Bush been successful.You can not have it both ways. The markets recently made new highs, who gets the credit? Oh... I see you will cherry pick a date, blame Bush, then , pick another date and give the Nobel to Obama.

David G
09-08-2013, 03:48 PM
His lack of diplomatic skills have resulted in worse relations with England, France, Israel, China, Russia, than when he was elected.


Foreign policy is NOT one of my big areas of interest... so I'm unlikely to follow too closely, or comment too vociferously until or unless a president really effsitup. If you want to peek back at my comments here during the Bush years... I think you'll find that I took that approach then, as I am taking it now. But when someone coughs up such a dead-thud clunker as the above... even the semi-informed such as myself boggles. I'm beginning to think I had the wrong impression of you all along. I though you were one of the moderates - more interested in facts and accuracy than in ideology.

Was I wrong all along? Have you recently gone off your meds? Or is there some other explanation for this absurd level of hyperbolic inaccuracy?

As much as it pains me... I have to offer one of these up for you as well --


Is sloppiness in speech caused by ignorance or apathy? I don't know and I don't care.

(http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/631.html)
William Safire (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/William_Safire/) (or was it D.Pratt???)

ljb5
09-08-2013, 04:38 PM
You can not have it both ways. The markets recently made new highs, who gets the credit? Oh... I see you will cherry pick a date, blame Bush, then , pick another date and give the Nobel to Obama.

Nor can you have it both ways.

The stock markets recently hit new highs, which is great for some of us (although Republicans hate to admit it.)

But it's not appropriate for everyone -- certainly not for people on Social Security.

The stock market lost about 50% of its value in a year and then took about four years to recover. That's fine if you've got the time and resources to wait it out.

But retires on fixed incomes cannot handle that type of volatility.

pefjr
09-08-2013, 06:44 PM
Nor can you have it both ways.

The stock markets recently hit new highs, which is great for some of us (although Republicans hate to admit it.)

But it's not appropriate for everyone -- certainly not for people on Social Security.

The stock market lost about 50% of its value in a year and then took about four years to recover. That's fine if you've got the time and resources to wait it out.

But retires on fixed incomes cannot handle that type of volatility.You missed the point. I am not surprised as you insist on twisting and spinning facts to ease your BDS.
CC was trying to blame the Bush Idea of investing SS funds in the market. I don't really think it was a good idea either, however his logic is flawed since the market has recovered and even gone higher. Good luck with that sickness.

ljb5
09-08-2013, 08:24 PM
CC was trying to blame the Bush Idea of investing SS funds in the market. I don't really think it was a good idea either, however his logic is flawed since the market has recovered and even gone higher. Good luck with that sickness.

I get a bored with you trying to blame everything on "BDS." Maybe someday you'll learn that not everything is either "pro-Bush" or "anti-Bush." Nor is it "pro-Obama" or "anti-Obama."

Sometimes things just are the way they are, regardless of who is in office. Investing retirement money in the stock market late in life is a bad idea, regardless of who proposes it.

When Bush proposed it, it was a bad idea eo ipso. Not a bad idea because Bush proposed it just a plain, old, bad idea.

I'm afraid I haven't the time to explain to you the mechanics of how Social Security works and why it's not structured as individual asset accounts. Suffice to say, that's just not what it is, nor how it works.

The fact that the stock market eventually recovered after five and a half years is great for young and rich people (like me), but not so good for people who depend on their Social Security on a monthly basis.

I'm so sorry you can't think about that without framing it in terms of "pro-Bush" or "anti-Bush."

Osborne Russell
09-08-2013, 10:15 PM
And I haven't heard any reason why he wants to bomb them.

To uphold international law.

genglandoh
09-09-2013, 05:56 AM
Another Dem Senator has decided to vote NO on the resolution.

It is interesting that he decided to make his decision public.

Democratic Senator Pryor Opposes Syria Strike ‘At This Time’
Democratic Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas said he opposes U.S. military action against Syria “at this time,” an announcement underscoring President Barack Obama’s challenge in winning Congress’s support for an attack.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-09-07/democratic-senator-pryor-opposes-syria-strike-at-this-time-1

ccmanuals
09-09-2013, 12:08 PM
LJ, I wouldn't even bother. The guy makes absolutely no sense.

Concordia 33
09-09-2013, 12:32 PM
Another Dem Senator has decided to vote NO on the resolution.

It is interesting that he decided to make his decision public.

Democratic Senator Pryor Opposes Syria Strike ‘At This Time’
Democratic Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas said he opposes U.S. military action against Syria “at this time,” an announcement underscoring President Barack Obama’s challenge in winning Congress’s support for an attack.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-09-07/democratic-senator-pryor-opposes-syria-strike-at-this-time-1


Or this from USA Today....



The comprehensive poll of Congress finds that only a small fraction of the 533 lawmakers — 22 senators and 22 House members — are willing to say they will support the use of force in response to the reported use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime. Far more overall — 19 senators and 130 House members — say they will oppose a resolution that would authorize military strikes. There are two vacant seats in the House where lawmakers resigned and have not yet been replaced.

The largest group of lawmakers remains undecided, including a majority of the Senate and the House. That could create an opportunity for the president to persuade them in a string of six interviews with TV network anchors Monday and a televised address to the nation Tuesday. The Senate could vote as early as Wednesday.

Osborne Russell
09-09-2013, 02:12 PM
Another Dem Senator has decided to vote NO on the resolution.

It is interesting that he decided to make his decision public.


Why would he keep it secret? So he could spring it at the last minute as a sabotage of the people's government? That's what Republicans do.

Osborne Russell
09-09-2013, 02:13 PM
Or









The anti christ !

In any case, don't send a woman to do a man's job . . . God doesn't.

David G
09-10-2013, 01:15 PM
All this talk about Johovah's Witnesses made me thing of this cute little parody. No offense intended:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1239748_10201958082616390_1953540770_n.jpg

bobbys
09-10-2013, 01:27 PM
Why would he keep it secret? So he could spring it at the last minute as a sabotage of the people's government? That's what Republicans do...
Monday morning, Secretary of State John Kerry made what an administration official called a "major goof (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/09/US-official-kerry-major-goof)" with a never-going-to-happen hypothetical (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/09/Putin-takes-advantage-of-kerry-blunder) that suggested Syria could avoid American airstrikes by surrendering their chemical weapons. Even the State Department walked Kerry's statement back (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/09/State-dept-walks-back-kerry-ultimatum-uk-briatin-urge-call-bluff). But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov immediately seized upon Kerry's flub, and now a member of the Russian parliament is gloating over Putin's checkmate of Obama.Watching one administration bungle after another unfurl, Alexi Pushkov , the chairman of the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, is publicly mocking Obama. Via Twitter, Pushkov wrote (http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/russians-hail-putins-triumph-on-syria) that this mess “knocks the ground out from under Obama’s plans for a military strike.”
Kerry's flub played right into the Russians hands; and by breaking weak, stepping back from his own red line, and embracing Kerry's hypothetical proposal during a round-robin of network interviews Monday night, President Obama chose to repeat Kerry's mistake. Russian President Vladmir Putin now looks like the world's peacemaker and Syria can dig in and drag this out forever as the West tries to figure out how to secure and destroy a thousand tons of chemicals weapons without putting "boots on the ground" in the middle of a civil war.
The real win for Syria and Russia, though, is that when this diplomatic quagmire is all over, Assad remains in power. This, after Obama said he must go.
As I write this, Assad is already taking advantage of the Putin/Kerry monkey wrench. For the first time since the talk of America military action began, today Syria resumed its bombing attacks against the rebels (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/10/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE9880HY20130910).
From Obama's off-script red line comment last year to Kerry's off-script second red line yesterday, the only thing driving American foreign policy regarding Syria are administration blunders.
Today, even Israel is laughing at us (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/10/Israel-Laughs-at-Obama-s-Face-Saving-Syria-Deal)..

Lets check..

Republicans?.

HMMM nope.

random republican comment fail

ccmanuals
09-10-2013, 01:41 PM
I can't read Brietbart stuff. My eyes start to bleed.

TomF
09-10-2013, 01:42 PM
Let me get this straight.

Syria's civil war has not only claimed upwards of 100k lives, but has largely been insoluable not least because Russia has continued to supply Assad. Recently Assad's forces have begun to use chemical weapons, while at the same time denying that they had any to use.

Obama's rattled his sabre, apparently concerned about the precedent this use of chemical weapons may set for this and other conflicts. While threatening strikes, he's also expressly re-legitimized the rights of Congress to express opinions on the American use of force ... particularly where these could be interpreted as "Acts of War." In doing this, he's built the first bipartisan support - including public support by the Rep House Leader - essentially of the past 4 years.

Respecting the Syrian war, Russia has till now blocked any effective use of the UN. It recently moved its own warships into position - in an implicit threat to retaliate if American missiles were ever fired. Then miraculously, through a "slip of the tongue" of America's chief diplomat, a face-saving resolution to the crisis has begun to appear. Russia leans on Syria to acquiesce, and it appears that the current threat for ongoing use of chemical weapons is relaxing. Just like Obama wanted it to.

Bobbys, this is failure? What would success look like?