RE: senate oks limited response

RE: senate oks limited response (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: senate oks limited response (9/6/2013 7:36:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Yeah, those are large monlithic assumptions though, I doubt 2/3rds is a cakewalk. No doubt on the assumptions or the 2/3 vote comment. But, it was a demonstration that the legislation isn't dead in the House. If the stories about incoming phone calls are accurate and the representatives represent the collective will of their constituents, it won't get out of either chamber. I have to admit, though, that I am quite pleased that, at least to this point, it isn't a completely partisan square off. Both For/Against sides have broad bipartisan support. That's uncommon lately.

mnottertail -> RE: senate oks limited response (9/6/2013 7:56:14 AM)
There is a couple other areas where stuff is starting to break loose, at least in politicalspeak, Medicare fixes for doctors billing to name one.........one can always hope that the sides and the center can find some way to move forward in increasingly more nefarious areas of our national waters. Yeah, good bad indifferent, go in or stay out, there is starting to be some 'apparent' cooperation manifesting itself here and there.

Phydeaux -> Why I support the President (9/6/2013 11:11:38 AM)
I have thought about this issue a great deal, over the last several weeks. And despite calling my congressmen in objection to going to war, I have changed my position. Let me articulate what I think this will and won't do: - I believe that Obama's motivation is essentially selfish. That he wants the american people to prove him right. - I am still not in favor of any bill that provides an on-going basis. - I believe that Obama has an obligation to ake the case to the American people- not once but multiple times. An obligation he has not taken seriously. - I do not believe a limited strike will change the trajectory of the fight. Washington said something to the effect "let us be guided by our interests and justice". Pretty wise guy. It was predictable and appalling that the US should have squandered two years, and not have provided basic arms to the secular rebels. This failure in forethought led to the dilemma we are in now, where we have a regime that supports terrorism and america's enemies vs an opposition that is even more virulently anti-american. As part of this policy, it is washington's position now to strike syrian assets to give the syrians pause before they use chemical weapons again. I think that policy is shortsighted. Does it make any difference to children if they are killed by chemical weapons or bombs? Obama clings to the thin reed of a technicality - that killing people by chemical weapons is wrong - while ignoring the monstrosity of killing 100,000 people. Still, if the best the president can do is to muster an attack to make the regime pause in the execution of chemical weapons - then I suppose I am in favor of it. But it is inconsistent and weak without measures to try to achieve a positive outcome in the American interest - ie., arming the FSA.

mnottertail -> RE: Why I support the President (9/6/2013 11:59:13 AM)
Well, beliefs are well and fine, if he essentially does the same as was done in Libya, why would the government not fall if the people of Syria are on a levelized field?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.015625