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.
Not so nice of a try. The vote was in October of 2002. I have no idea why people continue to make themselves look so partisan when things like this are so easy to look up.
In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
Oct 11 2008.
Your parsing of words fool nobody.
Nobody(not me, anyway) is parsing words. The bottom line is the Iraq War was a hidden agenda by the Neocons from the day the Bush/Cheney duo got voted into office. The speculation that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was just the excuse they were looking for to dupe congress into voting for the war authorization, a task made easier by the post 911 environment of the time.
Also, I'm not saying the Democrats are blameless(they're not). All I'm saying is the Tea Partiers only seem to come out of the wood work when the target of convenience is a Democrat. To those who insist the T-Party existed during the Bush years, try explaining why they were so quiet when Bush and the Republian contolled congress were deficit spending like drunken sailors?
...How can anyone take them seriously when they condoned the runaway spending of the Bush/Cheney Administration and Republican Congress...?
Someone is taking the Tea Party seriously?? When? I thought they were just the pre-show comedy before the Republican candidates came on for the real entertainment.
You asked when the tea party was started. Ron Paul is the father of the tea party. 2007 was the first tea party gathering, regardless of your need to disassociate factions to make your point.
On to your next point:
If Ron Paul stood a chance of winning he would have been supported. I support Paul, but as a libertarian I'm looking to his son who is much more grounded on foreign policy. Since his son isn't running, I must support the person I believe will unseat Obama.
Are you saying we should just ignore Romney and blindly follow Obama, again? I've got news for you, there isn't a libertarian in their right mind who will be voting for Obama this time around.
All you can do is beat your talking points into those who don't agree with you. You have nothing else to bargain with, no record to be proud of, nothing more than a broken dream and a lost cause. It doesn't take a degree to see what Obama is doing to this country.
Why are you so enamoured with Obama that you can't see the truth?
Two things:
A). Ron Paul's Organization is not related in anyway, shape or form to the Tea Party that was formed in early 2009. The only similarity is the name they happen to share. The Tea Party you're thinking about(circa 2009) is ran by Neocons like Sarah Palin, not Paleocons like Ron Paul. There's a big difference which you would know if you knew anything about conservatism.
B). This thread isn't a defense of Obama. However, if you think a Romney who has vowed to ramp up defense spending at the expense of every other budget line item is a better alternative, I'd love some of what you're smoking.
The vote was one month before the 2002 elections, by design. Karl Rove and his smear machine was lying in wait to go after anyone who opposed the vote and smear them, and their patriotism. In redneck states, which is much of America, those who opposed the neocons war by voting against it knew what was waiting for them.
Sadly, many did not have the courage to face down the lead smear merchant, and apparently didnt want to lose their cushy job, or face the fallout.
Well, don't blame anyone other than the cowards then.
Nobody(not me, anyway) is parsing words. The bottom line is the Iraq War was a hidden agenda by the Neocons from the day the Bush/Cheney duo got voted into office. The speculation that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was just the excuse they were looking for to dupe congress into voting for the war authorization, a task made easier by the post 911 environment of the time.
Also, I'm not saying the Democrats are blameless(they're not). All I'm saying is the Tea Partiers only seem to come out of the wood work when the target of convenience is a Democrat. To those who insist the T-Party existed during the Bush years, try explaining why they were so quiet when Bush and the Republian contolled congress were deficit spending like drunken sailors?
You were wrong the first time and this time. The first bail-out vote failed because those who protested the second one, also protested the first one.
Those who were looking out for the banks, Bush, Obama, Geithner, Bernanke won in the end.
A). Ron Paul's Organization is not related in anyway, shape or form to the Tea Party that was formed in early 2009. The only similarity is the name they happen to share. The Tea Party you're thinking about(circa 2009) is ran by Neocons like Sarah Palin, not Paleocons like Ron Paul. There's a big difference which you would know if you knew anything about conservatism.
What has happened is anything the left doesn't like becomes "Tea Party, Tea Party, Tea Party". It gives them a vague entity to complain about when they can't convince anyone their ideas are worthwhile.
BS. You keep repeating this lie. January 2009 is when todays tea party started and you know it. One reason and reason only.....the black man won. You and the rest of this group still love bush/cheney till this day
This is the moment when the Tea Party Movement as we know it came to be.
Bush never oversaw a deficit over $456 even after Democrats took control of the Congress and stopped passing budgets for him to either sign or veto.
The race card simply shows the left has no answer to patriots who insist the looting and corruption in DC end.
If liberals really believed Tea Party participants were big spending hypocrites motivated solely by racism, why didn't they call our bluff by cutting spending and reducing deficits.
That would have shut us up.
And while I don't support tax increases without spending cuts, Democrats could have at least raised taxes if they really believe it would reduce deficits but, when given the chance, they didn't.
Even when they controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, even when they had the power to enact legislation even against the will of the voters and when polls showed most voters open to the idea of tax increases on wealthy Americans, they simply extended the Bush tax cuts.
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.
