Moveon.org tells Obama not so fast on Syria

[Ikari]

Show it to us.

I already asked, he doesn't have evidence. Just statements by the government which is trying to excuse military action in Syria anyway.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I'm glad you added "to date," because there is doubtless more coming! :thumbdown:

Thanks for the laugh Lady P!!!

 

[solletica]

That has to be perhaps the stupidest bit of analysis on the subject that I've heard to date.

In other words, Rush Limbaugh never told you that, which, IMHO, is actually rather surprising. It is expected that Rush Limbaugh will be first to the plate when it comes to criticizing O for not being aggressive enough in going to war.

The day the average GOP voter doesn't cheer for any war is the day I sound silly.

 

[CanadaJohn]

In other words, Rush Limbaugh never told you that, which, IMHO, is actually rather surprising. It is expected that Rush Limbaugh will be first to the plate when it comes to criticizing O for not being aggressive enough in going to war.

The day the average GOP voter doesn't cheer for any war is the day I sound silly.

Trust me, your post doesn't need any help or qualifiers to sound silly.

 

[solletica]

Trust me, you don't need any help or qualifiers to sound silly.

No I do--tell us again how the GOP in Congress and the GOP public mostly doesn't support strikes in Syria.

 

[Jack Hays]

This is more good news, growing opposition from his BASE not to violate our laws.


PETITION STATEMENT
President Obama must seek explicit Congressional authorization before taking military action in Syria, as required by the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution. Congress must insist that Congressional debate and vote precede any military action.


MoveOn Petitions - President Obama: Don't Strike Syria Without Congressional Approval

Oh well.

[h=3]Stephen F. Hayes: The Hawk's Case Against Obama on Syria - WSJ ...[/h]online.wsj.com/.../SB1000142412788732457730457905489150754388...‎

 

[CanadaJohn]

No I do--tell us again how the GOP in Congress and the GOP public mostly doesn't support strikes in Syria.

Only 19% of the American public support the President's proposals for Syria in the last poll I saw - I can't imagine they're all Republicans - and even if they are, that leaves a hell of a lot of other Republicans who don't support the proposed actions.

 

[solletica]

Only 19% of the American public support the President's proposals for Syria in the last poll I saw - I can't imagine they're all Republicans - and even if they are, that leaves a hell of a lot of other Republicans who don't support the proposed actions.

But despite the movement among Republican politicians, the Republican rank-and-file still seem relatively supportive of intervention.

To date, every survey about a hypothetical strike on Syria after chemical weapons use shows Republicans more supportive than the general public, than Democrats, and with a majority of Republicans on board. The Washington Post and Pew Research asked about whether the US should intervene if the Syrian government used chemical weapons against civilians. According to Pew, 56 percent of Republicans were on board compared to 46 percent of Democrats and 45 percent of the population; The Washington Post has 67 percent of Republicans supporting an attack, compared to 55 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of all adults.

Syria 2013: Polls Say Republicans Most Supportive | New Republic

Fish must swim, birds must fly, and the GOP must support war.

 

[polgara]

Only 19% of the American public support the President's proposals for Syria in the last poll I saw - I can't imagine they're all Republicans - and even if they are, that leaves a hell of a lot of other Republicans who don't support the proposed actions.

Plus, everyone knows that Republicans never ever support Obama's proposals! Well, all except for maybe John McCain, and no one knows where he is coming from these days, except that he seems to favor bombing things! Maybe he owns a lot of defense stocks? :shrug:

 

[head of joaquin]

Fortunately, Obama isn't moving too fast (unlike the boob Bush). It's driving conservatives crazy since they don't know what talking points to use against him yet.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Plus, everyone knows that Republicans never ever support Obama's proposals! Well, all except for maybe John McCain, and no one knows where he is coming from these days, except that he seems to favor bombing things! Maybe he owns a lot of defense stocks? :shrug:

After being a POW in NVN, I'd be a bit pissed as well... Good evening pg...

 

[solletica]

The GOP is about 3 and only 3 things:

1) Spending the country into bankruptcy by waging endless foreign wars
2) Dolling out taxpayer-funded welfare to oil/mining cos., banks, and offense contractors
3) Policing the bedroom

In the last 30 years, since the time of Raygun, the above 3 have been the sole GOP accomplishments, and have thus defined the party in its entirety. .

It's what the GOP was about yesterday, it's what the GOP is about today, and what the GOP will be about tomorrow. Therefore, for anyone to suggest, or even consider the possibility that the GOP establishment, as a whole, could be opposed to war (even slightly) is absurd.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

The GOP is about 3 and only 3 things:

1) Spending the country into bankruptcy by waging endless foreign wars
2) Dolling out taxpayer-funded welfare to oil/mining cos., banks, and offense contractors
3) Policing the bedroom

In the last 30 years, since the time of Raygun, the above 3 have been the sole GOP accomplishments, and have thus defined the party in its entirety. .

It's what the GOP was about yesterday, it's what the GOP is about today, and what the GOP will be about tomorrow. Therefore, for anyone to suggest, or even consider the possibility that the GOP establishment, as a whole, could be opposed to war (even slightly) is absurd.

Please think before posting...

 

[Linc]

Repubs in Congress have a recent history of saying no to Dem Presidents, as we saw with Kosovo. We get it jcj.

Meanwhile, Dems will have voted for all 3, now becoming the new "Patriot" party, as your team describes it.

Only 19% of the American public support the President's proposals for Syria in the last poll I saw - I can't imagine they're all Republicans - and even if they are, that leaves a hell of a lot of other Republicans who don't support the proposed actions.

 

[Jack Hays]

Please think before posting...

Good evening, AP.:2wave:

That's a fine new avatar.eace

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Good evening, AP.:2wave:

That's a fine new avatar.eace

God evening 2m. 'Tis the season for football... :mrgreen:

 

[polgara]

I said that we do not know. And we don't. The US has just made assertions because they want to go in. Infinity war is good for fascism. Others, such as Russia, suggest that the attacks were perpetrated by another group. So the truth is, we don't know. And "we don't know" isn't enough for invasion and slaughter.

Good evening, Ikari. :2wave:

:agree: :thumbs: for a good post that speaks for a lot of people!

 

[APACHERAT]

Plus, everyone knows that Republicans never ever support Obama's proposals! Well, all except for maybe John McCain, and no one knows where he is coming from these days, except that he seems to favor bombing things! Maybe he owns a lot of defense stocks? :shrug:

Good evening again Polgara. :2wave:

If you're curious where John McCain is coming from now days, maybe this will enlighten you. -> Outside Agitators - Patrick J. Buchanan - Official Website

 

[polgara]

Good evening again Polgara. :2wave:

If you're curious where John McCain is coming from now days, maybe this will enlighten you. -> Outside Agitators - Patrick J. Buchanan - Official Website

Hello again to you, APACHERAT!

Well, that article was not only very informative, but it also ticked me off! The arrogance shown by some very influential people is astonishing. "We know best " is not the best way to get thinking people to cooperate on anything! Have we decided that forcing others to do the things we want is really the best way to win friends? That's rule by fear, and rarely engenders good will! Sheesh!!! :thumbdown:

 

[APACHERAT]

Hello again to you, APACHERAT!

Well, that article was not only very informative, but it also ticked me off! The arrogance shown by some very influential people is astonishing. "We know best " is not the best way to get thinking people to cooperate on anything! Have we decided that forcing others to do the things we want is really the best way to win friends? That's rule by fear, and rarely engenders good will! Sheesh!!! :thumbdown:

I just hope in 2016 the GOP runs a conservative not another neoconservative. The neoconservatives have to much in common with the internationalist liberals in the Democrat Party.

 

[humbolt]

The GOP is about 3 and only 3 things:

1) Spending the country into bankruptcy by waging endless foreign wars
2) Dolling out taxpayer-funded welfare to oil/mining cos., banks, and offense contractors
3) Policing the bedroom

In the last 30 years, since the time of Raygun, the above 3 have been the sole GOP accomplishments, and have thus defined the party in its entirety. .

It's what the GOP was about yesterday, it's what the GOP is about today, and what the GOP will be about tomorrow. Therefore, for anyone to suggest, or even consider the possibility that the GOP establishment, as a whole, could be opposed to war (even slightly) is absurd.

You left out suppressing any race but whites. If you're gong to cast aspersions, get it right and include all the talking points. This is just, just, well, incompetence. Look at China. We've successfully managed to completely suppress them. And the President. He's white. Right? Okay. Okay. Half-white. We did suppress the black half, though.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I just hope in 2016 the GOP runs a conservative not another neoconservative. The neoconservatives have to much in common with the internationalist liberals in the Democrat Party.

If that happens, get ready for four to eight years of President Clinton. Hillary that is.

Oh, and by the way, the Neoconservatives are the Ted Cruz types. Not the other way around.

 

[APACHERAT]

If that happens, get ready for four to eight years of President Clinton. Hillary that is.

Oh, and by the way, the Neoconservatives are the Ted Cruz types. Not the other way around.

Many conservatives are saying that Ted Cruz is a neoconservative plant.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Many conservatives are saying that Ted Cruz is a neoconservative plant.

He's more of a nutcase from an alternate dimension.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Many conservatives are saying that Ted Cruz is a neoconservative plant.

Look at the full history of the Republican Conservative, and tell me that the current definition of conservative as you use it is historically accurate (use Barry Goldwater as a Goal Post for historical accuracy). If not, then the "Neo" describes what you are calling conservatives, not the other way around.