Democrats to pass non-binding anti-surge resolution...in the house...next week

Thorgrim · 02-06-2007, 03:30 PM

House taking up Iraq measure next week - Politics - MSNBC.com

Pretty shitty we couldn't get the senate involved, they GOP refuses to even TALK about Iraq...thats hilarious...every single GOP senator voted for Iraq...only about half of democrats did, and most have said they regret their votes (unlike the vast majority of Republicans)

Now they won't even talk about it?

But here is my complaint about the Democrats:
Why next week? They are working a FULL WEEK this week, why can't they have a debate starting TODAY?

I didn't research, they may have a reason, but im pissed at either MSNBC for not giving the reason or the Democrats for not having a good one

JSmythe · 02-06-2007, 03:45 PM

A non-binding house resolution doesn't matter, thats why it isn't being debated now. At least everyone will be forced to go on record as to whether they support the war, that should give some republicans the sweats. That is, if they even bother voting. Congress does no work anymore.

Diesel66 · 02-07-2007, 03:57 PM

If they are against the war, take a stand and vote no to any more funding. Remove the funding today is even better, that would give the President 60 days before he is forced to pull out.

Otherwise let the President fight the war.

Kytro · 02-07-2007, 10:31 PM

Non binding, what are they the UN...

RMNIXON · 02-07-2007, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

Non binding, what are they the UN...

In the case of meaningless self-serving jestures I would say yes!

And don't even think about the great message this sends to the troops and our enemies when the money is sent and the plans go into action. The same people who approved of Gates and the New Iraq Commander who both approve of this action. So when it comes to substance they are cowards!

Pro Street · 02-07-2007, 11:42 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

If they are against the war, take a stand and vote no to any more funding. Remove the funding today is even better, that would give the President 60 days before he is forced to pull out.

Otherwise let the President fight the war.

That's what the GOP wants, so they can blast about how the dems don't support the troops.

However, there is no reason the dems shouldn't put forth a bill that will fund for a specific amount of time, roughly 6-8 months

Pro Street · 02-07-2007, 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

In the case of meaningless self-serving jestures I would say yes!

And don't even think about the great message this sends to the troops and our enemies when the money is sent and the plans go into action. The same people who approved of Gates and the New Iraq Commander who both approve of this action. So when it comes to substance they are cowards!

Oh please don't even try this "message to the troops and families"

The troops aren't retarded. Resolution or not they know what's going on here.

Diesel66 · 02-08-2007, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

However, there is no reason the dems shouldn't put forth a bill that will fund for a specific amount of time, roughly 6-8 months

All of the spending bills so far have been for a specific amount of time. Bush has requested the spending on a year by year basis.

lew · 02-08-2007, 10:09 AM

Those Democrats are so bold and courageous!

A non-binding resolution...

7960 · 02-08-2007, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by JSmythe

A non-binding house resolution doesn't matter,...

Originally posted by lew
Those Democrats are so bold and courageous!

non-binding = "we don't have the balls to own up to our convictions so we'll yell it and then run the other way like scared little girls but we'll still use it in our political ads"

lew · 02-08-2007, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

non-binding = "we don't have the balls to own up to our convictions so we'll yell it and then run the other way like scared little girls but we'll still use it in our political ads"

7960 · 02-08-2007, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by lew

but I'm right, right?

"What if I take a stand and someone gets pissed...I won't be able to back away and distance myself from it. Hey, how about a non-binding resolution so when someone says 'Do you support it?' I can say 'I did, before I didn't'."

Basically it's a way of taking both sides. When asked he can say "I voted YES on the non-binding resolution because I believe it's important!" and when someone says "but I disagree with it" he can then say "But I only voted yes because it was non-binding! If it had been an ACTUAL vote then I'm not sure that's something I can support."

Gee, who does that sound like?

Scrum · 02-08-2007, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

non-binding = "we don't have the balls to own up to our convictions so we'll yell it and then run the other way like scared little girls but we'll still use it in our political ads"

Sucks that politics has come to this, but I don't blame them for being scared of the GOP smear machine.

This resolution was only made to get a discussion going on the subject. Once they pass it more will come from this.

Scrum · 02-08-2007, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

Gee, who does that sound like?

Nearly every politician who holds office?

lew · 02-08-2007, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

but I'm right, right?

"What if I take a stand and someone gets pissed...I won't be able to back away and distance myself from it. Hey, how about a non-binding resolution so when someone says 'Do you support it?' I can say 'I did, before I didn't'."

Basically it's a way of taking both sides. When asked he can say "I voted YES on the non-binding resolution because I believe it's important!" and when someone says "but I disagree with it" he can then say "But I only voted yes because it was non-binding! If it had been an ACTUAL vote then I'm not sure that's something I can support."

Gee, who does that sound like?

Yes, you're right. In case you didn't get it with my post you quoted, I was being sarcastic

Non-binding resolutions are shit and worthless.

7960 · 02-08-2007, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Yes, you're right. In case you didn't get it with my post you quoted, I was being sarcastic

Non-binding resolutions are shit and worthless.

no, I got it....I just had more to say

JSmythe · 02-08-2007, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

but I'm right, right?

"What if I take a stand and someone gets pissed...I won't be able to back away and distance myself from it. Hey, how about a non-binding resolution so when someone says 'Do you support it?' I can say 'I did, before I didn't'."

Basically it's a way of taking both sides. When asked he can say "I voted YES on the non-binding resolution because I believe it's important!" and when someone says "but I disagree with it" he can then say "But I only voted yes because it was non-binding! If it had been an ACTUAL vote then I'm not sure that's something I can support."

Gee, who does that sound like?

its such good political maneuvering they forgot what the whole point of them being in control of congress is, to put forward a progressive agenda and GET THINGS DONE...

This is why when the dems won congress I didn't expect anything to change. They are just as bad as Republicans in terms of doing what they say they will do and within a reasonable amount of time. Minimum wage? Nope. Ethics reform? Yes, but they removed several major provision from the bill because of pressure from lobbying groups. War in Iraq? lol.

DosEquis · 02-08-2007, 02:36 PM

The non-binding resolution is to get the issue debated in government and is intended to do a couple main things. First it is to try to get more republicans on board in regards to a real change of direction in strategy. A real change in direction is something you can't use as a label for Bush's idea. The second thing is once they have this support they can pressure the president to change. Whether it is troop withdrawl, or redeployment, he will be ordering it and everyone will still be "supporting the troops".

Everyone knows what a cut in funding would look like politically.

lew · 02-08-2007, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

The non-binding resolution is to get the issue debated in government and is intended to do a couple main things. First it is to try to get more republicans on board in regards to a real change of direction in strategy. A real change in direction is something you can't use as a label for Bush's idea. The second thing is once they have this support they can pressure the president to change. Whether it is troop withdrawl, or redeployment, he will be ordering it and everyone will still be "supporting the troops".

Everyone knows what a cut in funding would look like politically.

I was watching some news thing the other night, and politicians were saying how they were looking forward to the "debate."

FUCK THAT. We don't need any more fucking debate. People are dying daily. We need to pull our asses out of there. I don't care if Democrats get the credit for it. I don't care if Republicans get the credit for it. Those soldiers need to get out and we need to stop fucking with other nations. FUCK those politicians on both sides of the aisle that look forward to this "debate", like it's a fucking 12th grade Debate class assignment.

DosEquis · 02-08-2007, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by lew

I was watching some news thing the other night, and politicians were saying how they were looking forward to the "debate."

FUCK THAT. We don't need any more fucking debate. People are dying daily. We need to pull our asses out of there. I don't care if Democrats get the credit for it. I don't care if Republicans get the credit for it. Those soldiers need to get out and we need to stop fucking with other nations. FUCK those politicians on both sides of the aisle that look forward to this "debate", like it's a fucking 12th grade Debate class assignment.

While i agree with you, we also need 60 senators to agree. In effort to try to get them on board we need to get it on the floor to debate.