Shouldn't spending a Trillion dollars require a referendum?

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I fail to see why it is better to replace the corrupt few with the retarded many.

Are you talkimg about the Obama voters?

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Zebo
You did not disprove anything. Many Democrats voted for it and a majority of Democrats in the Senates case supported it. It would not have passed w/o democrat support. The war could not have been funded without their continued support. In sum you are being a dishonest hack.

Budmantom's contention was that democrats voted for the war.

Of the 259 democrats in congress at the time, 111 voted for the war. So yes, some democrats did vote for it. But the majority were against it. There were 272 republicans in congress and 263 voted for it. The vast, vast majority were for it.

Thus, the original contention is false.

You can keep breaking congress numbers down to twist the facts (example: 100% of democrats named Hillary Clinton voted yes, but that still doesn't mean that democrats wanted the war). No matter what you say, 57% of democrats in congress voted against the bill or abstained.

The resolution was a republican led resolution, from a republican white house, supported by nearly all republicans, based upon evidence filtered through the republican's rose colored glasses, and intended to support republican promisses to try all other methods first. Yes, a few democrats joined in. It certainly wasn't a democrat bill though.

Bipartisan support, thanks for proving my point.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: BassBomb
Well? What do you think?

I dunno, what about starting a ruinously needless war in Iraq?

The the Dems voted for.

And the people were behind 85%...

Yeah, aftering being fed a load of bullshit.

Like the spendulus bill?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I fail to see why it is better to replace the corrupt few with the retarded many.

rofl, well said.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Zebo

A distinction w/o difference - Ultimately the measure allowed for use of force at presidents discression, was continually supported via Democratic funding and left wing pundits on the eve and shortly after war started where hardly no decent could be heard on Sunday news talk shows. It's only when things went south this intellectual dishonestly you're engage in became in vogue.

I wont even get into the neo-cons our current president has on staff, further validating both sides are bought and sold by the war party. Go over to antiwardotcom and read Justins analysis for all proof you need.

You are lying and crossing the line, so you get no response.

 

[idiotekniQues]

what about referendums for the trillion we spend a year on military-related expenses