Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama wasn't in Congress to vote against the war. But it's very clear in his platform he wants the troops out just as soon as Paul does (in a safe manner of course). Much quicker than this loser McCain.
But we agree Obama did vote wrong on this lates FISA amendment. I never said he didn't. But most democrats voted against this latest FISA amendment. With 95% GOP block voting it only takes a minority of bad Democrats to get bad laws passed.
Yeah, most did. 28 of them including 1 Independent. Obama wasn't one of them. If this campaign is supposed to be about real change in DC, Obama dropped the ball on this one.
Ron Paul has said he would immediately begin the removal of troops from Iraq. We would march out the way we marched in. Obama was a lot more cautious talking the same rhetoric as Bush and the GOP for 5 years now. That he would remove troops as conditions on the ground permit. That's not even close to what Paul said. Paul would also bring home troops stationed around the world. They would be used here at home when needed to protect us. Their money would also be pumped back into our economy instead of Japan, Germany, and the other 128 countries we have troops in. Obama wants to send the Iraq troops to Afghanistan. Not even close to being the same.
Aside from being completely off topic rb4browns, what is it exactly that makes you come to believe that Ron Paul is a tin foil hat wearing kook. Do you care discuss any of his specific pieces of legislation that he has opposed or supported that you find ludicrous or is posting a humorous, albeit poorly done picture have some deeper significance to this discussion that my small mind just doesn't seem to grasp?
I understand that today, a man who wishes to defend and support the founding document and principles that formed and gave life to our nation would be seen as a kook. After all he doesn't make hollow promises of gifts and prizes or offer unto the people shallow platitudes of glorious global supremacy just because they happen to be born American. I mean talk of things such as stable currency, liberty, smaller government, greater personal freedom, responsibility to country and each other, adherence to law, and other such things are just boooooring and so like yesterdays news.
I guess we should give the Constitution to the Iraqi's, no one here seems to care about it or even want it.
33% of Congress voted against the resolution to Authorize Force. That means that 66% of our lawmakers voted for it, either believing in what they were voting for or were uninformed about the lack of critical evidence.
But what does this have to do with your assertion that Obama is close to Paul on this issue? As you said, Obama wasn't in the Senate to vote for the Authorization. Paul was and voted against it. He has never voted for funding either because he doesn't care if his political opposites want to disparage him for having principles. And before this vote, he introduced legislation to declare war against Iraq, which would have been the Constitutional thing to do. Instead, Congress passed off their responsibilities to the President.
I think we are talking about different things here.
When you said this
"Yeah, most did. 28 of them including 1 Independent. Obama wasn't one of them. If this campaign is supposed to be about real change in DC, Obama dropped the ball on this one. "
Were you referring to the FISA amendment vote or the Iraq Resolution vote?
I think we are talking about different things here.
When you said this
"Yeah, most did. 28 of them including 1 Independent. Obama wasn't one of them. If this campaign is supposed to be about real change in DC, Obama dropped the ball on this one. "
Were you referring to the FISA amendment vote or the Iraq Resolution vote?
FISA. That's my biggest contention with Obama. I can deal with the redistribution of wealth for now. At some point, the taxpayers will demand some sort of accountability for those they elect. I think. But FISA sets a precedence that a President can unlawfully wiretap Americans with no oversight WITH help from corporations and we can do nothing about it. We can't fight it because we don't know who could have been wiretapped illegally. It doesn't matter if you're doing nothing wrong when the principle of the thing is what's at stake. Obama caved. McCain was already on that side.
Wouldn't it be something if Ron Paul endorsed Obama because he doesn't want to shackle us in debt to China in order to wage war for Halliburton and friends?
Well being he is a 10 term Republican Congressman from Texas, I guess the people of Texas must be complete idiots to vote for a guy who wears a tin foil hat foil hat.
it is no more idiotic than voting against him because he wears a tin foil hat.
Well being he is a 10 term Republican Congressman from Texas, I guess the people of Texas must be complete idiots to vote for a guy who wears a tin foil hat foil hat.
It's idiots who post foolish pics of these tin foil hats who have the problem. I guess they refuse to accept the reality of the country and the government today.
Bar none. It's Bob Barr for president 08
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
