What did you hear McCain and graham say?

Nobody gives a fuck what either of them think....you boys should be worried that President Cracka is going to start a war.

That might be true if they were not voting on whether or not to conduct a damn war. What they think matters a lot. They are just more republicans that are going to vote for Obama to attack Syria and get us into another war that we cannot afford, does not advance American defense and causes death.

The inference of the Lefty posts is that we on the right would all for this if it were a Repub Prez...

We don't want this, there will be no support for this except from people like Clayton cheerleading anything Bammy wants.

The rightwing does not care what Graham or Mccain think...we laugh at their assinine posturing.
 
Last edited:
I heard "sustained attack to degrade" Assad...and major effort to upgrade opposition.

One has to remember that McCain is completely in Obama's camp now. During an interview with Huffington Post (yes you read that right) McCain was bemoaning the fact that he couldn't be daily at the White House to advise Obama more.

Not kidding.

And by selling his soul entirely to Obama and Co, Meghan McCain has now got her own reality television show. I believe it's called Raising McCain.

And well Lindsey has always been McCain's tool.
 
Nobody gives a fuck what either of them think....you boys should be worried that President Cracka is going to start a war.

Spoken like a true moronic partisan hack.

McCain and Graham are classic warmongering neo-cons, like most republicans and others on the right, they’re advocates of ‘preemptive strikes’ and ‘nation building,’ whether that nation likes it or not.

If Obama were a republican you and other conservatives would be in full support of an attack; you oppose attacking Syria not on the merits of such an action but in knee-jerk opposition to everything Obama.

REMIND US WHY YOU SUPPORT IT? As I recall war in the middle east was a bad idea according to you until Obama wanted it. Correct me if I am wrong.
 
Wow that was so much more intellegent :rolleyes:

BHO does not want an invasion or a sustained air effort. That is nothing more than neo-con wet dreams and a hopeful wedge for reactionaries.

Both will fail.

Considering that he is spearheading a call to war I find your comment very starkey. IOW, asinine.

Your interpretation is off base as always. Telling a gangster in the community that he will be punished is not war in the sense you are implying: Iraq or Afghanistan.

This is why libertarians slip in the GOP, they have no sand for traction.
 
Nobody gives a fuck what either of them think....you boys should be worried that President Cracka is going to start a war.

That might be true if they were not voting on whether or not to conduct a damn war. What they think matters a lot. They are just more republicans that are going to vote for Obama to attack Syria and get us into another war that we cannot afford, does not advance American defense and causes death.

The inference of the Lefty posts is that we on the right would all for this if it were a Repub Prez...

We don't want this, there will be no support for this except from people like Clayton cheerleading anything Bammy wants.

The rightwing does not care what Graham or Mccain think...we laugh at their assinine posturing.

Ditto!

For the love of God - Retire McCain!! Just go away!!
 
I heard "sustained attack to degrade" Assad...and major effort to upgrade opposition.

whoever votes to have war with syria should be arrested for treason.

the syrian enemy is aq, harming syria aides and comforts aq

that's treason

Nonsense.

There’ll be no vote to authorize ‘war,’ that’s not what the president is seeking.

If anyone’s advocating war, it’s republicans, conservatives, and others on the right consistent with neo-con warmongering foreign policy, the proof of that are the statements made by McCain, Graham, and other Congressional republicans.

And those on the right who do oppose attacking Syria do so in opposition to Obama, not the proposed policy.
 
Nobody gives a fuck what either of them think....you boys should be worried that President Cracka is going to start a war.

That might be true if they were not voting on whether or not to conduct a damn war. What they think matters a lot. They are just more republicans that are going to vote for Obama to attack Syria and get us into another war that we cannot afford, does not advance American defense and causes death.

The Republican have a majority in the House and it will be interesting to see how that vote goes. The Democrats control the Senate and that will equally as interesting. Since all of the House is up for reelection next year, their vote may determine whether they get returned to Congress and who will have the majority. Only 1/3 of the Senate is in danger of winning or losing their seat so Harry Reid can make it a 51 vote majority one way or the other, allowing some of those running for reelection to vote the way their constituents want them too.
 
The neo-cons will not get a vote for war.

Those who support Assad and his Syrian regime that gasses children are going to have to vote that they support him by saying "no" to limited strikes on Syria.

This will symbolically break the back of the reactionaries before all of America. They can only flop around impotently after that.
 
The Republican have a majority in the House and it will be interesting to see how that vote goes. The Democrats control the Senate and that will equally as interesting.

Every Republican in the House and Senate will vote NAY

The result will be Obama, the Democrats and people of your ilk OWNING World War III

Congrats !
 
I heard "sustained attack to degrade" Assad...and major effort to upgrade opposition.

whoever votes to have war with syria should be arrested for treason.

the syrian enemy is aq, harming syria aides and comforts aq

that's treason

Nonsense.

There’ll be no vote to authorize ‘war,’ that’s not what the president is seeking.

If anyone’s advocating war, it’s republicans, conservatives, and others on the right consistent with neo-con warmongering foreign policy, the proof of that are the statements made by McCain, Graham, and other Congressional republicans.

And those on the right who do oppose attacking Syria do so in opposition to Obama, not the proposed policy.

I will bet that more Democrats vote to go to "war" than Republicans in the House and the Senate.

I don't know what your definition of "war" is, but bombing a country with several hundred cruise missiles and blowing their stuff up fits my definition.
 
Last edited:
As bad as he is, we are stuck with obama. We should prop him up and help him limp through for the good of the country.

The answer should be a resounding no.
 
As bad as he is, we are stuck with obama. We should prop him up and help him limp through for the good of the country.

The answer should be a resounding no.


Agreed. However, once the vote is taken, Barry will then begin to beat Congress (specifically the republicans) over the head that "THEY aren't supporting me".

Hell anyone can see that this is nothing more than Barry being Barry.

Never let a crisis go to waste. Remember?

This pussy was masterful in his decision to "wait" and "support Congress". He now gets off Scott free, no matter the vote.
 
I heard "sustained attack to degrade" Assad...and major effort to upgrade opposition.

One has to remember that McCain is completely in Obama's camp now. During an interview with Huffington Post (yes you read that right) McCain was bemoaning the fact that he couldn't be daily at the White House to advise Obama more.

Not kidding.

And by selling his soul entirely to Obama and Co, Meghan McCain has now got her own reality television show. I believe it's called Raising McCain.

And well Lindsey has always been McCain's tool.

So is the left still claiming that Republicans oppose everything Obama wants to do and that is why he is a failure?
 
whoever votes to have war with syria should be arrested for treason.

the syrian enemy is aq, harming syria aides and comforts aq

that's treason

Nonsense.

There’ll be no vote to authorize ‘war,’ that’s not what the president is seeking.

If anyone’s advocating war, it’s republicans, conservatives, and others on the right consistent with neo-con warmongering foreign policy, the proof of that are the statements made by McCain, Graham, and other Congressional republicans.

And those on the right who do oppose attacking Syria do so in opposition to Obama, not the proposed policy.

I will bet that more Democrats vote to go to "war" than Republicans in the House and the Senate.

I don't know what your definition of "war" is, but bombing a country with several hundred cruise missiles and blowing their stuff up fits my definition.

You have no idea what war is, then. Thank goodness for you.

This is a good approach to a bad situation.

Those who are backing Assad, the Baathists, the communists, are also backing Iran, I hope they understand.
 
As bad as he is, we are stuck with obama. We should prop him up and help him limp through for the good of the country.

The answer should be a resounding no.


Agreed. However, once the vote is taken, Barry will then begin to beat Congress (specifically the republicans) over the head that "THEY aren't supporting me".

Hell anyone can see that this is nothing more than Barry being Barry.

Never let a crisis go to waste. Remember?

This pussy was masterful in his decision to "wait" and "support Congress". He now gets off Scott free, no matter the vote.

With all due respect, I disagree. If Obama goes ahead and bombs the shit out of Syria on his own (with or without Congress's approval) the buzz is he will be breaking International Law.

America just "going it alone" bombing a nation is going to be a huge deal.

That's not getting off scott free at all.

It's a big deal.

U.S. strike on Syria would break international law
George Bisharat
Published 2:56 pm, Monday, September 2, 2013

AU.S. military attack on Syria without both congressional and United Nations Security Council approval would be illegal under U.S. and international law, respectively.

Congressional approval is required by the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which codified constitutional principles of the separation of powers and our system of checks and balances.

Per one constitutional scholar: "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

The author? Barack Obama, as presidential candidate in 2007.

Congress typically has not confronted American presidents who have employed force without its prior approval, including, most recently, President Obama in Libya.

But unchallenged violations do not in themselves negate a law, and Obama's 2007 statement remains accurate.


U.S. strike on Syria would break international law - SFGate
 
Nobody gives a fuck what either of them think....you boys should be worried that President Cracka is going to start a war.

Spoken like a true moronic partisan hack.

McCain and Graham are classic warmongering neo-cons, like most republicans and others on the right, they’re advocates of ‘preemptive strikes’ and ‘nation building,’ whether that nation likes it or not.

If Obama were a republican you and other conservatives would be in full support of an attack; you oppose attacking Syria not on the merits of such an action but in knee-jerk opposition to everything Obama.

LBJ was a neo-con?
 
If this works right, Syria and Iran both get a bloody nose, one physically the other morally.

You far righties and libertarians have to stop supporting Assad, the Baathists, Putin, Russia, and Iran.
 

Forum List

Back
Top