login
Non-binding resolution?
-
No new posts
|
 2007-02-05 6:15 AM |
Champion  10154    Alabama |  Subject: Non-binding resolution?What kind of politics is being played in congress? WTH is a non-binding resolution? Why would you have a debate for the sake of debate? Of course I'm being rhetorical. You have such a debate to posture yourself for reelection or election to higher office. This type of grandstanding is politics at it's worst and does nothing but tell our enemies we don't have the unified will to fight a war. Quit campaigning and get to work! OK, rant over. ~Mike |
| 2007-02-05 7:02 AM in reply to: #679249 |
Champion 7036 Sarasota, FL | Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution? Rogillio - 2007-02-05 7:15 AM You have such a debate to posture yourself for reelection or election to higher office. ~Mike You answered your own question. Mark |
| 2007-02-05 7:20 AM in reply to: #679249 |
Master 1704  Long Island, NY | Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution? I think I heard someone say that the Democrats want this in order to put everyone on the record as to their position on the Iraq war. |
| 2007-02-05 7:35 AM in reply to: #679249 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution? Rogillio - 2007-02-05 7:15 AM This type of grandstanding is politics at it's worst and does nothing but tell our enemies we don't have the unified will to fight a war. Quit campaigning and get to work! So is it all non-binding resolutions that get your goat, or just the ones that don't fit your political mindset? How did you feel about htis one? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/16/politics/main1719964.shtml |
| 2007-02-05 7:44 AM in reply to: #679297 |
Champion 10154 Alabama | Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution? run4yrlif - 2007-02-05 7:35 AM Rogillio - 2007-02-05 7:15 AM This type of grandstanding is politics at it's worst and does nothing but tell our enemies we don't have the unified will to fight a war. Quit campaigning and get to work! So is it all non-binding resolutions that get your goat, or just the ones that don't fit your political mindset? How did you feel about htis one? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/16/politics/main1719964.shtml
Same sort of thing. How about this one: |
| 2007-02-05 8:08 AM in reply to: #679306 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution? Thw Washington Post said this about the '06 resolution supporting the war: “The votes will not bind the administration, but the debates had the effect of putting scores of elected officials on the record concerning the nation's most pressing issue at a moment when the approaching midterm elections are putting control of both the House and the Senate in play.” That resolution was seen as a way to put comgressmen/women on record as to their feelings about the war. More specifically, the republican-controlled congress wanted to put deomocrats on-record as opposing the war so it could be used against them in the midterm elections. It was a political move, and the current resolution is also no-doubt a political move. If ours was a parliamentary system, this would be a no-confidence vote against the President. Since there's no such thing in our system, this is what we have. This resolution is just a public vote of no-confidence in the administrations handling of the war. |
| 2007-02-05 8:09 AM in reply to: #679306 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution? Rogillio - 2007-02-05 8:44 AM I'll have to look at it tonight, my work doesn't like youtube. |
| 2007-02-05 8:16 AM in reply to: #679326 |
Champion 10154 Alabama | Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution? run4yrlif - 2007-02-05 8:08 AM Thw Washington Post said this about the '06 resolution supporting the war: “The votes will not bind the administration, but the debates had the effect of putting scores of elected officials on the record concerning the nation's most pressing issue at a moment when the approaching midterm elections are putting control of both the House and the Senate in play.” That resolution was seen as a way to put comgressmen/women on record as to their feelings about the war. More specifically, the republican-controlled congress wanted to put deomocrats on-record as opposing the war so it could be used against them in the midterm elections. It was a political move, and the current resolution is also no-doubt a political move. If ours was a parliamentary system, this would be a no-confidence vote against the President. Since there's no such thing in our system, this is what we have. This resolution is just a public vote of no-confidence in the administrations handling of the war.
The problem is, nobody is ever held to account for their voting record. Clinton is distancing herself from the vote for the war in an "I was for the war before I was against it fashion." BTW, I see you buddy Newt is gaining some presidential steam. I predict he will be the GOP nominee - him and/or Giuliani. |
| 2007-02-05 8:19 AM in reply to: #679249 |
Pro 3673 MAC-opolis | Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution? Rogillio - 2007-02-05 7:15 AM What kind of politics is being played in congress? WTH is a non-binding resolution? Why would you have a debate for the sake of debate? Of course I'm being rhetorical. You have such a debate to posture yourself for reelection or election to higher office. This type of grandstanding is politics at it's worst and does nothing but tell our enemies we don't have the unified will to fight a war. Quit campaigning and get to work! OK, rant over. ~Mike I would have thought the 30 something percent approval rating on the war would have been a dead give-away that the US does not have a "unifed will".
|
| 2007-02-05 8:40 AM in reply to: #679346 |
Champion 10154 Alabama | Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution? The Mac - 2007-02-05 8:19 AM Rogillio - 2007-02-05 7:15 AM What kind of politics is being played in congress? WTH is a non-binding resolution? Why would you have a debate for the sake of debate? Of course I'm being rhetorical. You have such a debate to posture yourself for reelection or election to higher office. This type of grandstanding is politics at it's worst and does nothing but tell our enemies we don't have the unified will to fight a war. Quit campaigning and get to work! OK, rant over. ~Mike I would have thought the 30 something percent approval rating on the war would have been a dead give-away that the US does not have a "unifed will".
Good point Mac. I suppose you are right. There does not seem to be a unified national will to fight this jihad. This is why I predict a long and bloody war. The war against radical Islam is gonna go on for decades. |
| 2007-02-05 9:06 AM in reply to: #679342 |
Master 1821 | Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution? Rogillio - 2007-02-05 9:16 AM BTW, I see you buddy Newt is gaining some presidential steam. I predict he will be the GOP nominee - him and/or Giuliani. you mean Newt "I divorced my first wife while she was in the hospital for cancer and divorced my second after having an affair at the same time I was hounding Clinton" Gingrich? that Newt? and Rudy "My mistress was living in the mayor's house while I was still married...oh, and 9/11, 9/11, 9/11" Giuliani? this Rudy? neither has a chance. (giuliani-drag.jpg) Attachments ---------------- giuliani-drag.jpg (12KB - 7 downloads) |
| 2007-02-05 9:17 AM in reply to: #679396 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution? jimbo - 2007-02-05 10:06 AM you mean Newt "I divorced my first wife while she was in the hospital for cancer and divorced my second after having an affair at the same time I was hounding Clinton" Gingrich? that Newt? Not to mention his ethics issues and the fact that he was forced to resign his speakership. The republicans are looking for a return to moral superiority (alleged), so Newt doesn't seem like their man. |
| 2007-02-05 9:47 AM in reply to: #679368 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution? Rogillio - 2007-02-05 7:40 AM
Good point Mac. I suppose you are right. There does not seem to be a unified national will to fight this jihad. This is why I predict a long and bloody war. The war against radical Islam is gonna go on for decades. 1) There IS a strong national will to fight radical islam. I don't hear anyone saying we should get out of Afghanistan or stop fighting the Taliban or stop searching for OBL. What I DO hear is people saying we should get out of Iraq where most people in this country believe we are just refereeing a civil war and has nthing to do with terrorism. 2) Even if we accept your straw man that opposing the war gives comfort to our enemies (by this reasoning does this mean that if every person in the US supported the Iraq war that the terrorists would give up and stop fighting?) if people who opposed the war changed their view just so the terrorists aren't "aided" by their opposition wouldn't this be seen as simply appeasing the terrorists? ETA - I do agree with though that the fight against extemeist will go on for a long time. Edited by drewb8 2007-02-05 9:48 AM |
| 2007-02-05 10:08 AM in reply to: #679249 |
| Crystal Lake, IL | Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution? ******NEWSFLASH******* Our enemies doubted our resolve to fight this war for any significant length of time the day it started. Information stating that a split in opinion on how to handle the war exists is hardly news to them.
|
| 2007-02-05 10:11 AM in reply to: #679249 |
Champion 10154 Alabama | Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution? Civil war or not, we started it and if we don't end it, it's gonna hurt us in the long run. I don't know why the shites and sunis in Afghanistan aren't killing themselves in a civil war. Maybe the culture in the middle east is different….or maybe the oil is a factor…or maybe Iran and Syria are fueling the fire. We fought our civil war in the US and some 1/2 million Americans died in the process so I don't guess we can think too low of them. I know this is a very unpopular war…although I'm not sure any war is 'popular' when people are dying... but back to the OP, a non-binding resolution in an attempt to say "not MY fault, I tried to tell you" is a crock of politics. |
| 2007-02-05 10:17 AM in reply to: #679495 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution? Rogillio - 2007-02-05 9:11 AM but back to the OP, a non-binding resolution in an attempt to say "not MY fault, I tried to tell you" is a crock of politics. Oh. Um. then yes. But then again seems a little naive to not expect politics from politicians. |
| 2007-02-05 10:26 AM in reply to: #679508 |
Champion 10154 Alabama | Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution? drewb8 - 2007-02-05 10:17 AM Rogillio - 2007-02-05 9:11 AM Oh. Um. then yes. But then again seems a little naive to not expect politics from politicians.but back to the OP, a non-binding resolution in an attempt to say "not MY fault, I tried to tell you" is a crock of politics.
Yeah naïve, that's me….I still believe in truth, justice, integrity, morality, responsibility and a whole long list of other virtues. |
| 2007-02-05 10:26 AM in reply to: #679495 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution? Rogillio - 2007-02-05 11:11 AM ... but back to the OP, a non-binding resolution in an attempt to say "not MY fault, I tried to tell you" is a crock of politics. It is politics, but I think it's meant to be a clear statement on exactly how out of touch the executive is with the legislature, and by extension the people when it comes to this war. And moreso, how befuddled congress is with the direction the President is setting. After the elections, Bush spent a month getting opinions from apparently everyone he could regarding the war. The result? No one told him what he wanted to hear. So he canned those people that he could that disagreed with him and replaced them with yes men. Bush didn't want new ideas, he wanted people to agree with his old ideas. When he found out that no one did, he did what he had to do to ensure that his vision was implemented. So now congress is pissed, and this is the strongest way they have in showing their displeasure. |
| 2007-02-05 10:30 AM in reply to: #679525 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution? run4yrlif - 2007-02-05 9:26 AM Rogillio - 2007-02-05 11:11 AM ... but back to the OP, a non-binding resolution in an attempt to say "not MY fault, I tried to tell you" is a crock of politics. It is politics, but I think it's meant to be a clear statement on exactly how out of touch the executive is with the legislature, and by extension the people when it comes to this war. And moreso, how befuddled congress is with the direction the President is setting. After the elections, Bush spent a month getting opinions from apparently everyone he could regarding the war. The result? No one told him what he wanted to hear. So he canned those people that he could that disagreed with him and replaced them with yes men. Bush didn't want new ideas, he wanted people to agree with his old ideas. When he found out that no one did, he did what he had to do to ensure that his vision was implemented. So now congress is pissed, and this is the strongest way they have in showing their displeasure. Not really. They could cut off funding. Edited by drewb8 2007-02-05 10:31 AM |
| 2007-02-05 10:31 AM in reply to: #679495 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution? Rogillio - 2007-02-05 11:11 AM but back to the OP, a non-binding resolution in an attempt to say "not MY fault, I tried to tell you" is a crock of politics. I totally agree! What I want to hear out of Congress is "Baaaa. Baaaa. Baaaaa." Who needs politicians to express their views when they aren't what the Commander in Chief wants to hear? Whatever happened to go-along-to-get-along? Whatever happened to unquestioning loyalty? Whatever happened to blind obedience? Whatever happened to passivity? What is this country coming to? A bunch of dissenters. Hmph. |
| 2007-02-05 10:34 AM in reply to: #679534 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution? drewb8 - 2007-02-05 11:30 AM Not really. They could cut off funding. That's a good point, but no one wants that to happen. There are probably very few congressmen on either side of the aisle that see that as a real option; everyone wants the troops in the field to have the resources they need. |
| 2007-02-05 10:36 AM in reply to: #679541 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution? run4yrlif - 2007-02-05 9:34 AM drewb8 - 2007-02-05 11:30 AM Not really. They could cut off funding. That's a good point, but no one wants that to happen. There are probably very few congressmen on either side of the aisle that see that as a real option; everyone wants the troops in the field to have the resources they need. Its not a metter of the troops not having what they need. If there was no money, they would have to come home, they wouldn't be sent out there without the proper equipment. Its a matter of if funding is cut off then the Dems have their fingerprints on the war. If it doesn't work out then they can be blamed too instead of only Bush being blamed now. |
| 2007-02-05 10:37 AM in reply to: #679541 |
| Crystal Lake, IL | Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution? run4yrlif - 2007-02-05 10:34 AM drewb8 - 2007-02-05 11:30 AM Not really. They could cut off funding. That's a good point, but no one wants that to happen. There are probably very few congressmen on either side of the aisle that see that as a real option; everyone wants the troops in the field to have the resources they need. There's a lot of irony in that statement. What you really mean is that it is politcal suicide to appear to be the one advocating less support for the troops in the field.
|
| 2007-02-05 10:42 AM in reply to: #679249 |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution? 1: Rogillio, "we don't have the unified will to fight a war." I nominate you to go over to Iraq and kick some serious arse! If we create a stable and free Iraq we'll be much safer, and you can lead the way! 2: I'm happy that all the fighting is over there thereby keeping our nation safe. 3: What? A non-binding resolution? An attempt to communicate to this so-called leader of our country that the nation wants out of Iraq? Bah! Partisan politics. 4: What we really need right now to save our country are amendments to the Constitution to ban gay marriage, disallow civil unions, and outlaw flag burning. While we are at it, we need prayer in school, at work, and well, just about everywhere. This will make us safer in the long run, and BTers know about long runs! 5: If anyone really believes 1 through 4 you need your head examined. I hope everyone can see why Pelosi pushed so hard to prevent impeachment of this failed joke of a president. Getting Bush to step down would allow Cheney to take command, and if that doesn't send a chill down your spine, I don't know what would. People are finally mad as hell and not willing to take it anymore. We've been lied to, misled, and dragged into a war in which we are creating enemies by the minute. When you speak out against the war you are deemed unpatriotic and weak. I'm glad to see that 70% of the nation has woken up to the game being played by this White House and Pentagon. The resolution would be a signal to the world that we as Americans aren't all insane. |
| 2007-02-05 10:45 AM in reply to: #679546 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution? hangloose - 2007-02-05 11:37 AM There's a lot of irony in that statement. What you really mean is that it is politcal suicide to appear to be the one advocating less support for the troops in the field. I guess you could spin it either way, but seriously, do you really think anyone wants to take away resources from the troops? |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK