Exactly, Obama said in Seattle he wants to end the war by 2009. It is amazing at this point in the process people are still trying to distort his positions. Its not going to work. He will sweep tomorrow and use that momentum to take with Ohio or Texas OR both. Get ready for Obama vs McCain.
I'm just starting to research his positions since he is looking like he will be the nominee. According to his own website he says:
" if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on Al Qaeda."
"secure Iraq's borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda"
"ensure Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven"
How do you reconcile these statements to his anti-war stump speeches like the one you mention in Seattle? To me he is running an anti-war campaign but is actually just proposing a different war strategy. A lot of his ideas will succeed or fail depending on how succesful he is convincing Iran and Syria to help us police al Qaeda. I'm not discounting him as a candidate because of his position but I don't read it as an anti-war position.
im against war at any cost... these people arent... and you dont recognize it!
Well, I am against careless wars. I do think though that if someone attacks you you have every right to defend yourself. That is why I have no problem with the war in Afghanistan. Has the system been abused where companies are getting no bid contracts to rake it in? Very much so, and there should be investigations into those.
I've been against the war in Iraq since July of 2000 when W got the nomination. We all knew it was coming. However, he fucked up and has cost thousands upon thousands of lives in Iraq. I don't think we would be doing ourselves any favor by leaving the Iraqi civilians high and dry by leaving Al Qaeda there (who weren't there when we invaded) to take over the country.
I respect your thinking on war, but we disagree that war should never be waged. If someone declares war on you you have to do something about it. It's when you take the fight and expand it to places that pose no harm to your country that I have a problem with.
The President is not more powerful than the Senate. You are correct. However, with a 51/49 Senate the ball is clearly in the Presidents court.
this is exactly why we need responsible people in the senate that push to enact policies they apparently are so outspoken about..anyone can say they are against the war... I CAN SAY IT
you dont understand the system.. you think these votes go unnoticed? you dont think if there are votes everyday to end this thing it would go unnoticed by us??
use your brain..thats all iask... think about the idea of voting to end this thing everyday and the kind of pressure it would put on those who would like to keep their jobs in the senate and the president himself.
you really think so? you think a republican senator in the south or some other republican stronghold where the war is popular is going to start feeling pressure? how many votes will put enough pressure on them? you dont think people will ignore the votes like they ignore the daily violence in Iraq?
at least you said something coherent for once, even if you are completely wrong.
this is exactly why we need responsible people in the senate that push to enact policies they apparently are so outspoken about..anyone can say they are against the war... I CAN SAY IT
IM NOT IN THE FUCKING SENATE!
no shit, but you need ENOUGH PEOPLE in the senate so that it actually makes a difference. 51 people against it isnt enough.
you really think so? you think a republican senator in the south or some other republican stronghold where the war is popular is going to start feeling pressure? how many votes will put enough pressure on them? you dont think people will ignore the votes like they ignore the daily violence in Iraq?
at least you said something coherent for once, even if you are completely wrong.
you would be able to see who is voting for and against...this is the idea here... if you do this everyday... you dont think people would feel pressure to vote witht he majority of the country???
you need ENOUGH PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST THE WAR in the senate so that it actually makes a difference.
there is that better for you?
your wrong... if you vote everyday it would apply pressure to those whoa re being exposed every day for allowing continuation of a war. america would see its 27 people... or 32 people that are continuing the war.
youre completely wrong here...there are always the same amount of people in the senate.. unless they arent attending.
Yes, there are always 100 members of the Senatr. Now let me put it to you this way. If the Democratic Congress were to pass something to a Democratic President than it doesn't matter how many votes would need for a override because it would not be vetoed.
Now with a Democratic majority of +1 in the Senate, and a small handful in the House passing legislation to a Republican President (where he would veto it), the 2/3 would be needed. 67 votes are needed to override that veto. As you can clearly see, 67-51= 16. There are not 16 Republicans in the Senate who will cross the aisle to vote with Democrats to end the way.
imagine instead of mindless ... vote for change signs.. and change is obama... we would see people holding... hillary stop voting yes on continuation of the war!!
you would be able to see who is voting for and against...this is the idea here... if you do this everyday... you dont think people would feel pressure to vote witht he majority of the country???
no i dont. i think people would feel pressure to vote with the majority of the people in their district. Its clear to anyone who is paying attention who has voted against or for the war. what would voting more often do? you think some regular joe is gonna read the paper everyday to see who was against it? Voters already know who is keeping the war going.
Yes, there are always 100 members of the Senatr. Now let me put it to you this way. If the Democratic Congress were to pass something to a Democratic President than it doesn't matter how many votes would need for a override because it would not be vetoed.
Now with a Democratic majority of +1 in the Senate, and a small handful in the House passing legislation to a Republican President (where he would veto it), the 2/3 would be needed. 67 votes are needed to override that veto. As you can clearly see, 67-51= 16. There are not 16 Republicans in the Senate who will cross the aisle to vote with Democrats to end the way.
I'm just starting to research his positions since he is looking like he will be the nominee. According to his own website he says:
" if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on Al Qaeda."
"secure Iraq's borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda"
"ensure Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven"
How do you reconcile these statements to his anti-war stump speeches like the one you mention in Seattle? To me he is running an anti-war campaign but is actually just proposing a different war strategy. A lot of his ideas will succeed or fail depending on how succesful he is convincing Iran and Syria to help us police al Qaeda. I'm not discounting him as a candidate because of his position but I don't read it as an anti-war position.
He is against the permanent bases being set up in Iraq. His position is clear, not sure why you are over complicating it. End the war in Iraq. Provide security without having bases. No US president will ever be elected if he pears soft on defense, ever.
no i dont. i think people would feel pressure to vote with the majority of the people in their district. Its clear to anyone who is paying attention who has voted against or for the war. what would voting more often do? you think some regular joe is gonna read the paper everyday to see who was against it?
your wrong... if you vote everyday it would apply pressure to those whoa re being exposed every day for allowing continuation of a war. america would see its 27 people... or 32 people that are continuing the war.
1/2 of America would see it that way. 1/2 of America would also see it as political posturing in an election year, and spending wasteful lengths of time on a bill that the executive branch would never budge on.
What in George Bush's history makes you think that even if Congress was able to pass something like this that he would comply? What does he have to lose? He hasn't changed his mind w/ 70% of the population being unhapy with him, what makes you think 32 senators matter to him?
He is against the permanent bases being set up in Iraq. His position is clear, not sure why you are over complicating it. End the war in Iraq. Provide security without having bases. No US president will ever be elected if he pears soft on defense, ever.
he has said end the war in iraq... why are you making stuff up?
Do you deal with legislature all day every day? Do you deal with parlimentary procedures all day everyday? No? Well, I do. I know what it takes to get bills passed on both the state and federal level. I can go to a 7th grade government class and explain this to them and they will understand it.
1/2 of America would see it that way. 1/2 of America would also see it as political posturing in an election year, and spending wasteful lengths of time on a bill that the executive branch would never budge on.
What in George Bush's history makes you think that even if Congress was able to pass something like this that he would comply? What does he have to lose? He hasn't changed his mind w/ 70% of the population being unhapy with him, what makes you think 32 senators matter to him?
shocking! the lengths of denial carry on to made up statistics.
Comments
I'm just starting to research his positions since he is looking like he will be the nominee. According to his own website he says:
" if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on Al Qaeda."
"secure Iraq's borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda"
"ensure Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven"
How do you reconcile these statements to his anti-war stump speeches like the one you mention in Seattle? To me he is running an anti-war campaign but is actually just proposing a different war strategy. A lot of his ideas will succeed or fail depending on how succesful he is convincing Iran and Syria to help us police al Qaeda. I'm not discounting him as a candidate because of his position but I don't read it as an anti-war position.
Well, I am against careless wars. I do think though that if someone attacks you you have every right to defend yourself. That is why I have no problem with the war in Afghanistan. Has the system been abused where companies are getting no bid contracts to rake it in? Very much so, and there should be investigations into those.
I've been against the war in Iraq since July of 2000 when W got the nomination. We all knew it was coming. However, he fucked up and has cost thousands upon thousands of lives in Iraq. I don't think we would be doing ourselves any favor by leaving the Iraqi civilians high and dry by leaving Al Qaeda there (who weren't there when we invaded) to take over the country.
I respect your thinking on war, but we disagree that war should never be waged. If someone declares war on you you have to do something about it. It's when you take the fight and expand it to places that pose no harm to your country that I have a problem with.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
i will tell you what its not...and you dont press the on button to get it.
right...and people are just gonna forget. and no one will ask him a question about it for the rest of the campaign.
The President is not more powerful than the Senate. You are correct. However, with a 51/49 Senate the ball is clearly in the Presidents court.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
im saying you arent going to see adds...his platform saying
john mccain... 200 more years of war
john mccain.... supports war
of course hE SUPPORTS IT.
this is exactly why we need responsible people in the senate that push to enact policies they apparently are so outspoken about..anyone can say they are against the war... I CAN SAY IT
IM NOT IN THE FUCKING SENATE!
you really think so? you think a republican senator in the south or some other republican stronghold where the war is popular is going to start feeling pressure? how many votes will put enough pressure on them? you dont think people will ignore the votes like they ignore the daily violence in Iraq?
at least you said something coherent for once, even if you are completely wrong.
no shit, but you need ENOUGH PEOPLE in the senate so that it actually makes a difference. 51 people against it isnt enough.
youre completely wrong here...there are always the same amount of people in the senate.. unless they arent attending.
you wont see ads saying McCain is for bringing the troops home. you will see Obama ads saying just that.
you would be able to see who is voting for and against...this is the idea here... if you do this everyday... you dont think people would feel pressure to vote witht he majority of the country???
ads unfortunately arent always the truth..they are paid by the persons party.
no kidding. let me clarify for you.
you need ENOUGH PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST THE WAR in the senate so that it actually makes a difference.
there is that better for you?
Don't you think that is misleading based on his won website and his positions?
your wrong... if you vote everyday it would apply pressure to those whoa re being exposed every day for allowing continuation of a war. america would see its 27 people... or 32 people that are continuing the war.
Yes, there are always 100 members of the Senatr. Now let me put it to you this way. If the Democratic Congress were to pass something to a Democratic President than it doesn't matter how many votes would need for a override because it would not be vetoed.
Now with a Democratic majority of +1 in the Senate, and a small handful in the House passing legislation to a Republican President (where he would veto it), the 2/3 would be needed. 67 votes are needed to override that veto. As you can clearly see, 67-51= 16. There are not 16 Republicans in the Senate who will cross the aisle to vote with Democrats to end the way.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
no i dont. i think people would feel pressure to vote with the majority of the people in their district. Its clear to anyone who is paying attention who has voted against or for the war. what would voting more often do? you think some regular joe is gonna read the paper everyday to see who was against it? Voters already know who is keeping the war going.
your dead wrong
He is against the permanent bases being set up in Iraq. His position is clear, not sure why you are over complicating it. End the war in Iraq. Provide security without having bases. No US president will ever be elected if he pears soft on defense, ever.
when was the last vote to end the war?
1/2 of America would see it that way. 1/2 of America would also see it as political posturing in an election year, and spending wasteful lengths of time on a bill that the executive branch would never budge on.
What in George Bush's history makes you think that even if Congress was able to pass something like this that he would comply? What does he have to lose? He hasn't changed his mind w/ 70% of the population being unhapy with him, what makes you think 32 senators matter to him?
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
he has said end the war in iraq... why are you making stuff up?
maybe so but to say he's no different than McCain or that 51 democrats in the senate can end the war is just delusional.
No. I'm not.
Do you deal with legislature all day every day? Do you deal with parlimentary procedures all day everyday? No? Well, I do. I know what it takes to get bills passed on both the state and federal level. I can go to a 7th grade government class and explain this to them and they will understand it.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
shocking! the lengths of denial carry on to made up statistics.
you believe if the war comes down to 16 republicans they wouldnt cross over?
of course he is different and no one here has said they are the same. and i dont understand why you are against peace?