171 Congressman vote to immediately get out of Iraq, only 47 short

Thorgrim · 05-11-2007, 07:08 AM

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll330.xml

Wow, can you believe that, only 47 short of Congress saying GET OUT OF IRAQ RIGHT THIS SECOND

The Democrats got some balls, just not enough votes, give it until September, and regardless of the surge results, we'll pick up some votes and it'll be interesting to see Bush have to deal with a Congress voting to get out NOW

motivez · 05-11-2007, 11:54 AM

I hope they stand firm.

I just worry that in a few months if no funding is passed they're going to buckle under the intense rhetoric by the GOP to misinform the American public about how the funding process works (ie: blaming lack of funds on Democrats instead of the President for vetoing the spending bills)

RMNIXON · 05-11-2007, 05:25 PM

I see many Democrat Noes in that link.

Let us not forget that the Congress is "one" of "three" equal branches of government. That does not mean that less than an overwhelming majority of "one" branch can take control of another. Because that would be a dictatorship would it not? So vote to override the Presidents Veto or pass what he will sign. That is the powers given.

No wishes count.........

DosEquis · 05-11-2007, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I see many Democrat Noes in that link.

Let us not forget that the Congress is "one" of "three" equal branches of government. That does not mean that less than an overwhelming majority of "one" branch can take control of another. Because that would be a dictatorship would it not? So vote to override the Presidents Veto or pass what he will sign. That is the powers given.

No wishes count.........

Perhaps you should send this in a memo to the president.

RMNIXON · 05-11-2007, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I hope they stand firm.

I just worry that in a few months if no funding is passed they're going to buckle under the intense rhetoric by the GOP to misinform the American public about how the funding process works (ie: blaming lack of funds on Democrats instead of the President for vetoing the spending bills)

If they want to stand firm deny the funding period. There is no confusion in the way the process works. The responcibility of both is clear. It seems only one side is playing hide and seek to me. The President wants to fund these operations. The Senate leader says we have failed already. What more do you need?

RMNIXON · 05-11-2007, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Perhaps you should send this in a memo to the president.

He has made his intentions within his Constitutional powers and responcibility known to the Congress. The ball is in their court..........

What is the point?

Thorgrim · 05-12-2007, 02:05 AM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

If they want to stand firm deny the funding period. There is no confusion in the way the process works. The responcibility of both is clear. It seems only one side is playing hide and seek to me. The President wants to fund these operations. The Senate leader says we have failed already. What more do you need?

thats exactly what they just voted on...

6SpeedTA95 · 05-12-2007, 10:47 AM

This never would have been on the floor if they thought it would pass, it would be political suicide. This is political grandstanding by the democrats to help keep their base rallied because those in office no damn well we can't just come home now.

Thorgrim · 05-12-2007, 01:20 PM

It would not be political suicide...a fully funded withdrawal is just as bad as a fully funded withdrawal after a year of a failed policy

JaJae · 05-12-2007, 01:26 PM

2 Republicans for and 59 Democrats against is not an accomplishment. It's grandstanding. It was voting yes for a bill they knew had no chance to pass simply so they could say they did it to their local communities.

Thorgrim · 05-12-2007, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

2 Republicans for and 59 Democrats against is not an accomplishment. It's grandstanding. It was voting yes for a bill they knew had no chance to pass simply so they could say they did it to their local communities.

Low punches with no reasoning besides a "hunch"

they voted their beliefs, thats not grandstanding, they were talking about getting maybe 100 votes, they ended up with 170+, that was a surprise, not a staged event

JaJae · 05-12-2007, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Low punches with no reasoning besides a "hunch"

they voted their beliefs, thats not grandstanding, they were talking about getting maybe 100 votes, they ended up with 170+, that was a surprise, not a staged event

Your just proved my point. They knew it wasn't going to pass. But they wanted to vote on it anyway.... why? So they can say they voted yes.

Thorgrim · 05-12-2007, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Your just proved my point. They knew it wasn't going to pass. But they wanted to vote on it anyway.... why? So they can say they voted yes.

Many civil rights legislation was voted on that wouldn't pass before they got it through, it takes time and many efforts

They are working on building up enough votes...once you have those 171, you build from there, its a process

But yes, I am guessing all those people were frauds

In the 1940s the House passed or came close to passing several civil rights bills that they knew had no chance of getting through the Senate...what dumb grand-standing, shouldn't they have been working on more important things than civil rights when everyone knows that has no chance of getting through