Iraq and ANWR.....

[PostmodernProphet]

so puzzle me this....

the Dems say that we went to Iraq for oil...
the Dems say that the Iraqis didn't want us there....
the Dems say we killed a million Iraqis.....
but, they voted to authorize Bush to invade Iraq....

we want to go to ANWR for the oil...
the Alaskans want us there....
the only thing there are a few hundred caribou.....
but the Dems won't authorize Bush to invade ANWR.....

go figure....

[Yurt]

so puzzle me this....

the Dems say that we went to Iraq for oil...
the Dems say that the Iraqis didn't want us there....
the Dems say we killed a million Iraqis.....
but, they voted to authorize Bush to invade Iraq....

we want to go to ANWR for the oil...
the Alaskans want us there....
the only thing there are a few hundred caribou.....
but the Dems won't authorize Bush to invade ANWR.....

go figure....

not to mention the fact that caribou (proven) have actually increased their numbers around other oil pipelines. the dems (according to mfm) like to bend over for the saudis. i don't get, how is it they bitch at bush for "appeasing" the saudis? where do the dems plan on getting their oil? they sure are not going to allow the US to drill in a remote region that affects no one. the dems like to whine and complain....

[retiredman]

so puzzle me this....

the Dems say that we went to Iraq for oil...
the Dems say that the Iraqis didn't want us there....
the Dems say we killed a million Iraqis.....
but, they voted to authorize Bush to invade Iraq....

we want to go to ANWR for the oil...
the Alaskans want us there....
the only thing there are a few hundred caribou.....
but the Dems won't authorize Bush to invade ANWR.....

go figure....

a majority of congressional democrats voted against the war.

[actsnoblemartin]

a majority of congressional democrats voted against the war.

:link: :link: :link:

[Yurt]

a majority of congressional democrats voted against the war.

but there were dems that voted for the war.....

[actsnoblemartin]

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

[retiredman]

but there were dems that voted for the war.....

I don't deny that. a majority of my party's congressional delegation opposed the war, and for that, I am quite proud.

[Kathianne]

:link: :link: :link:
So many times it's been posted, ask MFM, it's his baby.

[manu1959]

a majority of congressional democrats voted against the war.

how many have voted to withdraw........

[retiredman]

how many have voted to withdraw........

not enough

[actsnoblemartin]

and you are 100% correct according to wikipedia, 81 democrats voted for, 126 against, that means out of 207 total democrats, 61% percent of democrats opposed the war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_St ates_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq#Passage

Passage

126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.


I don't deny that. a majority of my party's congressional delegation opposed the war, and for that, I am quite proud.

[retiredman]

:link: :link: :link:

there are two roll calls. One from the house. one from the senate. go look them up. do the math. A majority of congressional democrats voted against the war. It is public knowledge. I have no intention of providing you any more educational assistance. If you doubt the truth of my statement, I really don't care.

[actsnoblemartin]

lets say between 100,000 - 500,000 iraqis are slaughtered after we leave.

Im putting this out there as a conservative estimate.

and iran, could take over the oil of iraq

or even one of these two happened

does that concern you?, or the better way i should ask, how do u feel about that.


a majority of congressional democrats voted against the war.

[actsnoblemartin]

um, i did my research. I checked your statement. I gave you your kudos, because YOU WERE RIGHT.

what else more do you want from me?


there are two roll calls. One from the house. one from the senate. go look them up. do the math. A majority of congressional democrats voted against the war. It is public knowledge. I have no intention of providing you any more educational assistance. If you doubt the truth of my statement, I really don't care.

[manu1959]

not enough

really......which bill was that.....who sponsored it......

[retiredman]

really......which bill was that.....who sponsored it......


what is this.. "gotcha night? not enough democrats have stood up and demanded that we withdraw.

[retiredman]

um, i did my research. I checked your statement. I gave you your kudos, because YOU WERE RIGHT.

what else more do you want from me?

not a thing, martin...except perhaps to do that research first before replying with the :link::link::link: smilie three times.

[Silver]

I don't deny that. a majority of my party's congressional delegation opposed the war, and for that, I am quite proud.

And as usual your point is...you have no point....

We could not have gone to war if it weren't for the support of some of the most well known leaders of the Democrat Party in the Congress....:salute:

[JohnDoe]

And as usual your point is...you have no point....

We could not have gone to war if it weren't for the support of some of the most well known leaders of the Democrat Party in the Congress....:salute:
you are right, the senators should have never TRUSTED their President to make the RIGHT decision and not go to war unless it was absolutely necessary to prevent an imminent attack on us!!!

they were all just stupid to trust president bush after 9/11.... you hit the nail on the button! :poke:

jd

[actsnoblemartin]

you said it, i had a perfectly good right to make a link sign, three was a bit obsessive, sorry.


not a thing, martin...except perhaps to do that research first before replying with the :link::link::link: smilie three times.

[retiredman]

you said it, i had a perfectly good right to make a link sign, three was a bit obsessive, sorry.

do as many as you like, martin....you clearly showed the capacity to discern the validity of my statement on your own, however.

[Yurt]

what is this.. "gotcha night? not enough democrats have stood up and demanded that we withdraw.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL, wuss....gotcha night....LOL... you can't debate

[Silver]

you are right, the senators should have never TRUSTED their President to make the RIGHT decision and not go to war unless it was absolutely necessary to prevent an imminent attack on us!!!

they were all just stupid to trust president bush after 9/11.... you hit the nail on the button! :poke:

jd

Right on John...you really believe those Dems were too stupid to understand exactly what they were voting on.....obviously you never read the resolution...and you really think those Dems didn't either....

Actually you might be right....they just might be that stupid..thats a possibility....a good one at that...:laugh2:

You gotta hand it to em though....they vote FOR WAR and then blame the entire thing on Bush....that is political savvy....

[retiredman]

Right on John...you really believe those Dems were too stupid to understand exactly what they were voting on.....obviously you never read the resolution...and you really think those Dems didn't either....

Actually you might be right....they just might be that stupid..thats a possibility....a good one at that...:laugh2:

You gotta hand it to em though....they vote FOR WAR and then blame the entire thing on Bush....that is political savvy....

a majority of democrats voted against it.

[manu1959]

what is this.. "gotcha night? not enough democrats have stood up and demanded that we withdraw.

no really....anyone sponsored any legislation to withdraw....they have a majority now.....a majority voted against the war.....can't barry or the bitch get someone to write somothing so you all can vote to withdraw the troops....

i mean it has been 6 years......

[retiredman]

no really....anyone sponsored any legislation to withdraw....they have a majority now.....a majority voted against the war.....can't barry or the bitch get someone to write somothing so you all can vote to withdraw the troops....

i mean it has been 6 years......

well... we've tried, but only having 49 democrats in the senate proves problematic given the rules there concerning cloture. and we could not really vote to withdraw troops...that is a CINC decision...we could withhold funding, which we have tried to do but were stymied by the senate rules mentioned above.

[manu1959]

well... we've tried, but only having 49 democrats in the senate proves problematic given the rules there concerning cloture. and we could not really vote to withdraw troops...that is a CINC decision...we could withhold funding, which we have tried to do but were stymied by the senate rules mentioned above.

so you have given up......cuz you can't win......

[retiredman]

so you have given up......cuz you can't win......

let's count senate seats in January.

[manu1959]

let's count senate seats in January.

that is what you all said jan 06......i am starting to think all you talk tough but don't actually do anything....

[retiredman]

that is what you all said jan 06......i am starting to think all you talk tough but don't actually do anything....


we have never had 60. you ARE aware of the senate rules regarding cloture, are you not?

[Classact]

well... we've tried, but only having 49 democrats in the senate proves problematic given the rules there concerning cloture. and we could not really vote to withdraw troops...that is a CINC decision...we could withhold funding, which we have tried to do but were stymied by the senate rules mentioned above.That is pure bull shit! If the Democrats wanted to end the war then they just write legislation for funding with rules that only allow withdraw. This legislation always starts in the House. The Senate cannot change it if the House advises them that it is this or nothing. The majority could end the war from day one but to do so whould make them responsible for all the bad shit that followed and that they fear more than the credit for ending the war/

[Joe Steel]

so puzzle me this....

the Dems say that we went to Iraq for oil...


Which Democrats say the US attacked Iraq for oil?

I don't recall hearing or reading of any widespread belief among elected Democrats that the US attacked Iraq for oil.

Provide some evidence.

[glockmail]

so puzzle me this....

the Dems say that we went to Iraq for oil...
the Dems say that the Iraqis didn't want us there....
the Dems say we killed a million Iraqis.....
but, they voted to authorize Bush to invade Iraq....

we want to go to ANWR for the oil...
the Alaskans want us there....
the only thing there are a few hundred caribou.....
but the Dems won't authorize Bush to invade ANWR.....

go figure....Oil creates wealth/ wealth creates self-reliance/ self reliant people don’t vote Democrat.

[retiredman]

That is pure bull shit! If the Democrats wanted to end the war then they just write legislation for funding with rules that only allow withdraw. This legislation always starts in the House. The Senate cannot change it if the House advises them that it is this or nothing. The majority could end the war from day one but to do so whould make them responsible for all the bad shit that followed and that they fear more than the credit for ending the war/


sorry. go back and take a civics refresher. Legislation must pass both houses before being sent to the president. without 60 votes, the republicans can hold up anything the house passes.

[Silver]

sorry. go back and take a civics refresher. Legislation must pass both houses before being sent to the president. without 60 votes, the republicans can hold up anything the house passes.

Yeah..don't we know it....the Dems did it to the R's 100's of times in the past few years....thats why the things that are screwed up...are.

[retiredman]

Yeah..don't we know it....the Dems did it to the R's 100's of times in the past few years....thats why the things that are screwed up...are.

what goes around comes around... I won't deny that democrats used filibusters to our advantage when we were in the minority.

It is a tad bit disingenuous, though, to use the filibuster power of your senate numbers to stop democratic legislative initiatives on one hand and then turn around and whine that democrats have not accomplished much in congress on the other.

[Sitarro]

what goes around comes around... I won't deny that democrats used filibusters to our advantage when we were in the minority.

It is a tad bit disingenuous, though, to use the filibuster power of your senate numbers to stop democratic legislative initiatives on one hand and then turn around and whine that democrats have not accomplished much in congress on the other.

What goes around comes around..... Democrats have blocked measures to improve the economy, military spending, energy independence, etc. for decades. They have passed bullshit legislation that handcuffed business and led corporations elsewhere.

Both parties are out for themselves and couldn't give a fuck about what is best for AMERICA, they have proven it time and time again. The Democrats are just more about just that, getting and holding on to power, even if to the detriment of our country.

[retiredman]

What goes around comes around..... Democrats have blocked measures to improve the economy, military spending, energy independence, etc. for decades. They have passed bullshit legislation that handcuffed business and led corporations elsewhere.

Both parties are out for themselves and couldn't give a fuck about what is best for AMERICA, they have proven it time and time again. The Democrats are just more about just that, getting and holding on to power, even if to the detriment of our country.

that is your opinion....I disagree.

[JohnDoe]

so puzzle me this....

the Dems say that we went to Iraq for oil...
the Dems say that the Iraqis didn't want us there....
the Dems say we killed a million Iraqis.....
but, they voted to authorize Bush to invade Iraq....

we want to go to ANWR for the oil...
the Alaskans want us there....
the only thing there are a few hundred caribou.....
but the Dems won't authorize Bush to invade ANWR.....

go figure....


so puzzle me this....

Do you think that if the Congress had agreed to give up our National Wildlife land to the Oil companies during the Clinton Administration that President Bush would not have made the sole decision to bring our country in to a War in Iraq?

Surely this is NOT what you are IMPLYING is it? :slap:

jd

[PostmodernProphet]

so puzzle me this....

Do you think that if the Congress had agreed to give up our National Wildlife land to the Oil companies during the Clinton Administration that President Bush would not have made the sole decision to bring our country in to a War in Iraq?

Surely this is NOT what you are IMPLYING is it? :slap:

jd

excellent conclusion....it is NOT what I am IMPLYING......

I am IMPLYING that the Democrats care more for caribou than they do Iraqis......

[ranger]

a majority of congressional democrats voted against the war.

Only 21 Dems in the Senate and 125 in the House voted against the war. And a lot of those who voted against the war are no longer in Congress.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalleadership/a/IraqNayVote_3.htm

Doesn't seem like a majority to me and it's interesting to note that a lot of them didn't come back after the vote.

[ranger]

excellent conclusion....it is NOT what I am IMPLYING......

I am IMPLYING that the Democrats care more for caribou than they do Iraqis......

They care more for caribou then they do for their fellow Americans, much less the Iraqis......

[Classact]

sorry. go back and take a civics refresher. Legislation must pass both houses before being sent to the president. without 60 votes, the republicans can hold up anything the house passes.I know what you are saying has been the routine but the fact I say is this: If the Democratic majority in the House legislates funding only for withdraw then the only option is to withdraw. The Senate can amend the legislation removing the language to withdraw but then it goes back to the House for another vote. The House can then refuse to agree to the Senate's changes and leave the funding bill in conference. The troops run out of money and the war ends.

The president and Senate Republicans can complain all they want and the House can say they will fund the withdraw or nothing. The house has the checkbook, not the Senate and it is the House that writes the check.

The House leadership just doesn't have the balls or gonads to end war funding because when all hell breaks lose in Iraq following the withdraw they would be blamed and fired by the people that put them in office.

Thursday the House defeated funding the war when 79 Republicans voted present on the war funding issue. The Republicans in the House want a clean funding bill and the House leadership is spoon feeding politics on the troops backs. The "Out of Iraq" Caucus cheered as the measure failed!

Nancy went to Iraq over the weekend and she will be back in the House begging Republicans to vote yes for war funding next week.