obama successfully reaches across to Republicans.

[Matt1970]

Wow there's a first time for everything I guess; I have never been called a racist before in this forum, I guess I'll add another notch on my belt of people labeling me with funny tags that don't apply. Calling me racist has to be right up there with someone calling me a bible thumper because I knew the bible better as an atheist than some of the right-wing so-called Christians in this forum did.

Either that or you were being sarcastic; I'm hoping sarcasm.

No, you are pretty much a racist.

 

[Theb]

I wonder if Obama's Nobel Peace Prize makes him laugh or cry or if he's even able to look at it.

I heard McCain on the radio going on about how we can't separate Iran and Syria. It sounded like he was hoping we could get heavily involved in Syria and have that spin off into a conflict with Iran. He was also adamant that our involvement in Syria shouldn't be just a few missiles, but decisively change the situation on the ground.

I don't think our involvement should go beyond humanitarian aid to the refugee camps.

I was against Bush for war. I'm against Obama for thinking about war and will despise his position if he puts us into one, but you haven't paid a bit of attention to this forum (or have willingly ignored the truth if it's convenient to do so) if you don't see exactly what you're saying isn't true. There are many on this very forum that have flipped positions - both ways - since Obama has became president. Yes, I said both ways.....

Yep.

 

[BoberFett]

I wonder if Obama's Nobel Peace Prize makes him laugh or cry or if he's even able to look at it.

I heard McCain on the radio going on about how we can't separate Iran and Syria. It sounded like he was hoping we could get heavily involved in Syria and have that spin off into a conflict with Iran. He was also adamant that our involvement in Syria shouldn't be just a few missiles, but decisively change the situation on the ground.

I don't think our involvement should go beyond humanitarian aid to the refugee camps.

Yep.

Wow, the "maverick" sure has turned into a warmongering piece of crap. How do we keep electing such assholes?

 

[Genx87]

Does South Carolina (and Arizona for that matter) have a lot of defense contractors?

As for the two mentioned, they were both slobbering over the idea of war yesterday....with the only pause being that Graham was blasting Obama for not doing it two years ago.

*sigh*

These two have been slobbering over going to war with anybody for years.

 

[boomerang]

Wow, the "maverick" sure has turned into a warmongering piece of crap. How do we keep electing such assholes?

I have three words for you. Mandatory retirement age. Term limits and a mandatory retirement age in government are both long overdue.

McCain played poker on his iPhone during the hearing today. I guess his mind is already made up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ates/?id=ed01ca14-222b-4a23-b12c-c0b0d9d4fe0a

 

[Matt1970]

 

[IGBT]

he spends his entire presidency evading and trashing congress and now he picks and chooses a time when he can hide behind congress.

 

[Balt]

Previously Obama couldn't even get Congress to agree that water was wet. It's so touching that they can all join hands to agree to blow shit up.

After that, we can even help them rebuild their country by throwing tons of money at them. I'm sure none if will end up in the hands of the Western-hating extremists.

 

[ivwshane]

If Obama was smart he would use this issue and it's subsequent response as a PR move to the Muslim world. His response should be that, although the Syrian conflict doesn't have anyone we can clearly call an ally, and it's a civil conflict, he feels that all life should be protected including Muslims, including those that may wish to ham us. I think he should turn this into a "don't needlessly kill Muslims" message as opposed to just a "no WMD" message. Not only will it be embraced by other Muslims throughout the world in my opinion but it would also create/strengthen Muslim US sympathizers and maybe even weaken the anti US sentiment.

 

[Juddog]

No, you are pretty much a racist.

You sound like a broken record - congrats for being the dumbest poster in the thread.

 

[IGBT]

so where are all the hollyWood idiots with their give peace a chance dogma and all the marching and liberal looting in the streets?? doesn't jane fonda and cher and cindy and code pink have any catchy slogans or poetry to spew forth?? where are they??

 

[Genx87]

If Obama was smart he would use this issue and it's subsequent response as a PR move to the Muslim world. His response should be that, although the Syrian conflict doesn't have anyone we can clearly call an ally, and it's a civil conflict, he feels that all life should be protected including Muslims, including those that may wish to ham us. I think he should turn this into a "don't needlessly kill Muslims" message as opposed to just a "no WMD" message. Not only will it be embraced by other Muslims throughout the world in my opinion but it would also create/strengthen Muslim US sympathizers and maybe even weaken the anti US sentiment.

lmfao we will kill more muslims than these supposed chemical weapons.

 

[Vic Vega]

Obama is becoming Bush lite....sadly.

Obama needed to STFU on the bombing stuff to begin with and now he has himself and the country in a hole and the warmongering fools in Congress can't wait to get another one started.

Bush was bad but calling Obama Bush is insulting... to... uh... Bush.

He sucks on an entirely different level.

 

[Engineer]

Bush was bad but calling Obama Bush is insulting... to... uh... Bush.

He sucks on an entirely different level.

At this point, I disagree.....but my tune may change soon enough...

 

[BlueWolf47]

he spends his entire presidancy evading and trashing congress and now he picks and chooses a time when he can hide behind congress.

Are conservatives really this ideologically driven. After Libya conservatives declared he was a dictator for not going to congress before providing military support.

Now that he finnaly went to congress for approval conservatives claim hes trying to "hide" behind congress.

I have never seen a political party trying so hard to appear completely retarded.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77257299/


Leadership agrees to let Obama blow stuff up.

The beginning of a beautiful relationship.

Basically he won the McCain (aka neo-cons who love to spend on the military and wars) contingent of the party who were already lobbying for action to be taken by Syria. Just like he has support from the big government loving, pro-authoritarian Democrats who are looking to do some chest pounding and cement more government spending as well.

Top House Democrat Nancy Pelosi also voiced support for military strikes after meeting Obama, but he will still have to persuade some lawmakers, including Democrats, who have said they are concerned the president's draft resolution could be too open-ended.

In the end while this may be a success on his part it not a success for the American people or elements (Rand Paul's libertarian friendly group and Dennis Kucinich style Dems) within both parties who are totally against his desire to bomb Syria.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...f-he-acts/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

Former Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich was asked on Friday on Fox News to defend a tweet in which he suggested President Obama faces impeachment if he were to act unilaterally against Syria.
“200 in #Congress demand #Syria vote. #Constitution art.1 sec.8 -@BarackObama risking #Impeachment?” the former Democratic congressman from Ohio tweeted to his 36,000 followers.
Mr. Kucinich argued that the conflict in Syria does not pose an “imminent or actual threat” to the United States.

Edit: Word is Rand Paul might attempt to filibuster this vote. I hope so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-paul-filibuster-a-possibility-on-syria-vote/

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the most outspoken opponents of military action in Syria, wouldn’t rule out the possibility Tuesday of launching a standing filibuster over the issue in the Senate.

“I can’t imagine that we won’t require 60 votes on this,” Paul told reporters on an afternoon conference call. “Whether there’s an actual standing filibuster — I’ve got to check my shoes and check my ability to hold my water. And we will see. I haven’t made a decision on that.”

 

[boomerang]

Is there any way to force these clowns to fund such an operation? Take money from something else to pay for it? If they're going to ignore the wishes of 59% of the people, they should pay a political price.

 

[dank69]

The latest poll shows 59% of the people are opposed to getting involved in Syria. Hearings are now being held to determine whether Congress will approve getting involved in Syria. There need be no discussion. The people don't want it.

Unfortunately, the opinion I just expressed will be considered naïve or immaterial. The people no longer have a say in government. Obama has already said he's doing it whether he has approval from Congress or not.

To recap;
People don't want it.
Congress is trying to decide which way to vote.
Obama has already made up his mind.

We no longer have a representational form of government. We have one man making decisions. Why all the hoopla? Are that many being fooled into still thinking they have a say in things?

I wonder how many Republicans will vote for military action and how many Democrats will vote against it.

 

[BoberFett]

so where are all the hollyWood idiots with their give peace a chance dogma and all the marching and liberal looting in the streets?? doesn't jane fonda and cher and cindy and code pink have any catchy slogans or poetry to spew forth?? where are they??

I was wondering that earlier today. Shouldn't Alec Baldwin be at the forefront in condemning Obama and his mouthpiece Kerry?

 

[Engineer]

Is there any way to force these clowns to fund such an operation? Take money from something else to pay for it? If they're going to ignore the wishes of 59% of the people, they should pay a political price.

I'll say the same thing for Obama as I did for Bush. If you want war....pay for it. Put out a war tax and see how far that gets you.

(Yes, I'm serious)

 

[michal1980]

like I've been saying bi-partisan = worst thing ever


Yet democrat's keep trying to always push for it, and whine that republicans don't come around to their pov.

 

[CZroe]

If Obama was smart he would use this issue and it's subsequent response as a PR move to the Muslim world. His response should be that, although the Syrian conflict doesn't have anyone we can clearly call an ally, and it's a civil conflict, he feels that all life should be protected including Muslims, including those that may wish to ham us. I think he should turn this into a "don't needlessly kill Muslims" message as opposed to just a "no WMD" message. Not only will it be embraced by other Muslims throughout the world in my opinion but it would also create/strengthen Muslim US sympathizers and maybe even weaken the anti US sentiment.

I know, right? Because the imaginary victims of the Muslim Holocaust in World War 3 must be brought to the World's attention and we must make it clear which side we are on so that they won't hate us. 🙄

Seriously though: just who, other than Assad, is killing Muslims needlessly and how does that affect their opinion of us? What kind of pointless message is that?! Hamas and Al Qaeda do not hate us for "needlessly killing Muslims." Stop imagining things.

 

[yllus]

I'm far worse than a conservative. I'm a *gasp!* libertarian. I've been a peace loving hippie for a long time. If it were up to me, I'd pull back every American soldier stationed overseas and close every foreign military base. If the rest of the world wants to kill each other, let them. We'll maintain a strong defensive military that's used for... oh I don't know... defense?

I think your strategy is inferior to the one being used currently. A military that is completely stationed at home is limited to being a reactionary option. A military that is strategically positioned throughout the world ideally stop aggression from ever occurring (ie. Operation Desert Shield to protect Saudi Arabia). You wouldn't just save lives; you'd save money, too.

That said, the problems with having a big military are numerous. Aside from your politicians starting to itch with the urge to make use of it, the military tends to become a pretty formidable constituency of its own and can really muck up the civilian side of things. I think you folks definitely need to make cuts, but closing every overseas base seems ill advised.

I wonder if Obama's Nobel Peace Prize makes him laugh or cry or if he's even able to look at it.

Let's be clear here - as far as reasons to go to war go, an awful dictator using chemical weapons against his own populace is a pretty morally defensible one. So I imagine he can look at his Nobel Peace Prize in the, uh, eye just fine. It's the realist argument - that sending Americans to yet another Middle Eastern country with no hope of actually accomplishing anything - that should give him pause.

 

[Incorruptible]

so where are all the hollyWood idiots with their give peace a chance dogma and all the marching and liberal looting in the streets?? doesn't jane fonda and cher and cindy and code pink have any catchy slogans or poetry to spew forth?? where are they??

They're just a bunch of pieces of shit. They were outraged with bush but it's alright for obama. It's all partisan politics, I'm still waiting for obama supporters to call him out but I doubt they will.

 

[BoberFett]

IA military that is completely stationed at home is limited to being a reactionary option.

And? That's the point. War should be reactionary. Or do you actually believe in that preemptive war tripe? Initiating violence makes you the aggressor.

A military that is strategically positioned throughout the world ideally stop aggression from ever occurring (ie. Operation Desert Shield to protect Saudi Arabia). You wouldn't just save lives; you'd save money, too.

Yeah, how has that been working out there for us, General Armchair? Are we saving money yet?

That said, the problems with having a big military are numerous. Aside from your politicians starting to itch with the urge to make use of it, the military tends to become a pretty formidable constituency of its own and can really muck up the civilian side of things. I think you folks definitely need to make cuts, but closing every overseas base seems ill advised.

Ah, so as long as you ignore everything bad about a massive military spread around the world, it's a great thing?

Let's be clear here - as far as reasons to go to war go, an awful dictator using chemical weapons against his own populace is a pretty morally defensible one.

Does that include our soldiers who had Agent Orange dropped on them?