Senate approves '08 goal to bring troops home

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I brought up that very thing in a thread that I started earlier
ahem...cough...shameless plug...cough cough

www.abovepolitics.com...

[edit on 3/29/2007 by wu kung]

huh?...wonder why it didn't do a direct link...

[edit on 3/29/2007 by wu kung]

um mods? a little help with the link please, if you could.
Thanx.
-WK

[edit on 3/29/2007 by wu kung]
```````````````````````
fixed link

[edit on 29/3/07 by masqua]




posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   
If President Bush were to veto the bill and it goes back to the Senate how many votes are needed to make it into law. This bill passed the Senate 50 to 48. That isn't much of a margin.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   
That depends.
How much cash do you have on you right now?



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   
why now? why did the senate and congress grow a pair so late? they are standing up against the bully that is bush, but is it too late?



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by AMANNAMEDQUEST
why now? why did the senate and congress grow a pair so late? they are standing up against the bully that is bush, but is it too late?


What do you mean?
The new senate has only been in power since January, and it does
take time to do these things.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by goose28in
If President Bush were to veto the bill and it goes back to the Senate how many votes are needed to make it into law. This bill passed the Senate 50 to 48. That isn't much of a margin.


I believe it requires 2/3 of the senate to override a veto.
I amy be off, I have'nt read the constiution in a few months.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
I believe it requires 2/3 of the senate to override a veto.
I amy be off, I have'nt read the constiution in a few months.



Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.
source


You are right iori. 2/3's will "get er done".

Anyone else, Article 1 Section 7 is the pertinent section of the Constitution for as far as passing bills/laws is concerned.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   
If the majority of the House and Senate approve of the bill and the president veto's it, respectively giving it back to the Senate, don't the Senators have a moral obligation to do what the majority of the public elected them to do, which is bring the troops home?

Why aren't the other senators agreeing with the bill? Why is there a split in the Republican senate? For that matter, did all the Democrats vote in favour? If not, why are they split on this? It really doesn't depend on the president anymore if the senate can provide a 2/3 "anti-veto".



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
If Bush vetoes this bill then he is done. Calls for articles of impeachment will start to ring in the halls of congress. A president this disconnected from reality and with what the majority of people want and with no clear plan for victory at all in Iraq is a menace to the country and the world. I for one do not even support pulling out, but I don't support this man at all and his endless excuses about how he has failed this country. Throwing 100's of billions of dollars at Iraq and thousands of young US soldiers to the meat grinder just to save face is not what I call a plan of action. This guy has failed at everything he has ever done in life. Why should this be any different? Another goon elected by the guns, God, and gays crowd...



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
If the majority of the House and Senate approve of the bill and the president veto's it, respectively giving it back to the Senate, don't the Senators have a moral obligation to do what the majority of the public elected them to do, which is bring the troops home?


It passed the senate by a slim majority, 2/3 of the senate would not
agree to pass it after a veto, there are'nt that many supporters of it.

And it would be unconstiutional to try, and therefore make them subject
to firing for trying to go against there constiutionally designated abilities.




Why aren't the other senators agreeing with the bill?


For two main reasons.
1. They don't believe in setting a timetable.
2. They believe it has to much 'pork', which it does'nt, the added
things are all positive things.




Why is there a split in the Republican senate?


Because not all Republicans are the same, just as not all Democrats,
or people from any group are.




For that matter, did all the Democrats vote in favour? If not, why are they split on this? It really doesn't depend on the president anymore if the senate can provide a 2/3 "anti-veto".


You could look up the record for votes, I'm sure the sneate website has it, I'm not sure how many democrats voted for it though.

Like I said about Republicans, not all Democrats are the same, there
are conservative democrats, or as they are sometimes referred to as
the 'Blue dog democrats' and the liberal Democrats, as well as centrist
Democrats.

It does depend on the president right now, as there is not a 2/3
majority who would vote to override the veto.





Originally posted by Escrotumus
If Bush vetoes this bill then he is done. Calls for articles of impeachment will start to ring in the halls of congress.


No they wont, there are not enough people who would support it, and
besides that there have been those who want to impeach him from
both sides for the last 2-3 years, so they would'nt just start.

Besides that, he has less than a year left in his term, by the time they
actually got it through, he'd only have a 2-4 months left in his term.




This guy has failed at everything he has ever done in life.


I would'nt say that, yes he is a failure as a president though.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
If the majority of the House and Senate approve of the bill and the president veto's it, respectively giving it back to the Senate, don't the Senators have a moral obligation to do what the majority of the public elected them to do, which is bring the troops home?

They are under no moral obligation for anything, except to represent the people of which they are elected.



Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
Why aren't the other senators agreeing with the bill? Why is there a split in the Republican senate? For that matter, did all the Democrats vote in favour? If not, why are they split on this? It really doesn't depend on the president anymore if the senate can provide a 2/3 "anti-veto".

Other Senators aren't agreeing with this (and others like this one) because they haven't got enough people telling them what they want, therefore there's one of two reasons they don't support it.

1) The few people that do speak up, are not in support of this type of bill.
2) They are completely corrupt and wish to follow with the Bush Admin.'s agenda.

Some Republican Senators don't give a hoot about what the people want, they want to be right with the elite, in the end (reference #2).

Democrats... same reasoning.

By the Constitution, the bill still has to have the President's signature to actually make it law. It's the balance of powers in action.



Originally posted by Escrotumus
If Bush vetoes this bill then he is done. Calls for articles of impeachment will start to ring in the halls of congress. A president this disconnected from reality and with what the majority of people want and with no clear plan for victory at all in Iraq is a menace to the country and the world. I for one do not even support pulling out, but I don't support this man at all and his endless excuses about how he has failed this country. Throwing 100's of billions of dollars at Iraq and thousands of young US soldiers to the meat grinder just to save face is not what I call a plan of action. This guy has failed at everything he has ever done in life. Why should this be any different? Another goon elected by the guns, God, and gays crowd...

Not necessarily. We all know here at ATS that the good majority of the American populous is very apathetic. Simply put, they're just not involved. He's already made the point that he'll try to get the American populous to believe it was Congress that held the funds (after all, Congress does hold the keys to the "purse"), and if not enough people are aware of exactly what's going on, then he's got that much better of a chance to pull it off.

Pelosi already stated there will not be talks of impeachment. Then again, if enough of the people begin to cry out (which they very well should), then maybe that could change.


Guns, God, and gays did not get him in alone. That was the general consensus across the board. If more people knew what was going on, instead of watching "Who wants to be a Millionaire", maybe more people could and would make a more educated decision as to who represents this Nation.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Bush decides to veto and use his presidential powers knowing that the American people has voiced their disappointment on the war and I can already see the impeachment of president bush, specially when his time is so short.

It will be we the people the ones to ask for impeachment.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Bush decides to veto and use his presidential powers knowing that the American people has voiced their disappointment on the war and I can already see the impeachment of president bush, specially when his time is so short.

It will be we the people the ones to ask for impeachment.



Unless there was massive protests in several major cities, or Bush
does something so bad, like attack Iran, there won't be calls for
impeachment, apart from the fact that he has so little time left in
office, the congress has much more valuable matters to pursue than
impeaching a president with less than a year left in office.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   
You guys aware of the progress in Iraq? The new, latest greatest plan is working. Don't you think we need to give it a chance? New people are in charge of the mess that Rumsfeld left. They're working it out. It's not like we can just leave now. Any expectations people have about aborting now are based on ignorance. I don't like the war either. We should've done other things to fight the "War On Terror". Maybe a little regime change in Iran would've been more justifiable instead. Sadaam would had to have been taken out at some point. The same thing goes for Ahmadinejad. That guy needs to be assassinated or something. In order to go after somebody after 911, we would've had to go to the Middle East anyway. And not just in Ahfghanistan. (Those pesky f###ing terrorists are like ants over there. They're all over the place.) We need some type of stronghold and an ally out there to keep the terrorists from coming here. Isolationism has been proven not to work already, so that's ruled out. We should never have gotten involved with the Middle East in the first place, way back when. Hindsight's a bitch. All we can do is go forward. (Personally, I'm gonna vote for Sen. Thompson should he get the nod. He'll make it all better!)



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Excuse me but if you are listening to the propaganda then yes . . . McCain said is working and he even said in a TV interview in CNN that you can walk in areas in Baghdad with confidence . . . but guess what one of the correspondant in Baghdad said to McCain . . . that he most be talking about another place because in Baghdad a westerner will not last 20 minutes in the streets alone.

And by the way 123 has die today in Baghdad attacks, I guess this doesn't match the progress been claimed.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   
If you consider my sources progaganda, then so shall yours be. If it comes from the media, or the politicians, it's all some type of proaganda. The truth is, we aren't there. You can't tell me exactly how things are, compared to how they were. I cannot do the same for you. I know some soldiers. This is what I here. Period. There are two sides to every story. Mine, and yours. I know people over there are dying every day. That's a given in that area with or without our presence. The Middle East is a very volatile area. Always has been. It's not like the Persian's were innocent. Civil unrest has always run rampant in that area. And I believe that I stated something like, "We should've gone elsewhere.", but we did not. You can hold your war trials for our government later. Right now, we need to finish our job out there. What do you think is going to happen if we said, "Sorry Iraq, we're outta here!"? The though of that is simply rediculous. The way things are now, we need a US presence over there. What's your answer to what needs to happen. Do you have a solve all plan?



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by ConstantlyWondering
As for me I love my troops and wouldn't dare put them in harms way without funding. What country are you posting from?


Humm, playing the blaming game and the where are you from it most be my Spanish that gives me away. . .


Obviously you love the troops so I hope you are serving in Iraq also.


As for me I married a marine, is that love enough for you? I still have not told you my family members that had died for this nation.

Is that love enough.


Our president needs to be put in place he obviously think that the people of this nation is nothing but numbers and our soldiers are just spendable.


Wow, you steer away from my question but I will be a good poster and answer yours. I served and my generation won the cold war. What did you do again? Oh, you married a marine. Good good good, you know all about the military experience don't you?


Also, everybody has a family member or friend lost in war. Why are you special? I didn't want to break it to you but your aren't alone. Now can you answer me? Do you want the US to lose? Are you going to leave our loved ones out in the field without the neccesary tools to engage the enemies?


And what spanish? I am from the US. We are diverse. More so than any country on the planet so don't try the race card with me. Am I racist because I disagree with you? That is not an intelligent response. Thanks!



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConstantlyWondering

Wow, you steer away from my question but I will be a good poster and answer yours.


I have been around posters that when they do not agree with another poster they, first got after the patriotism scare, then the blaming game, then the language bashing and then they end up looking silly actually.

But you are not one of them, actually I think you are fine. . .



I served and my generation won the cold war.


Well nice to know that you are not an armchair warrior, like many others around.

My Italian American grandfather served during WW2 and died for this nation.

My father served in Korea and lost a brother during that war.

He also lost a brother in Vietnam.



What did you do again? Oh, you married a marine. Good good good, you know all about the military experience don't you?


Yes I was a military wife for 22 years until. . . My husband retired, and yes I was there working in family services during the hard times of the first gulf war making sure families were taken care off.



Also, everybody has a family member or friend lost in war. Why are you special?


Yes I really think so, three heroes than died for this nation and two brothers that served in the military, then . . . silly. . . I married a marine.



I didn't want to break it to you but your aren't alone. Now can you answer me? Do you want the US to lose?


Nice tried but no working . . . our war path president already lost Iraq, our well-trained troops achieved their goal, but their victory has been tarnished with the incompetence of a commanding in chief and his personal agendas that he put first over the military goal.

You understand me, don’t you . . . after all you are a warrior yourself.



Are you going to leave our loved ones out in the field without the necessary tools to engage the enemies?


How many soldiers lives has to be lost for the pleasure of the profiteers of war? Iraq is lost, Iraq is in a civil war and that is an internal problem cause by the lack of control during occupation.



And what spanish? I am from the US. We are diverse. More so than any country on the planet so don't try the race card with me. Am I racist because I disagree with you? That is not an intelligent response. Thanks!


Oh, but you did notice my spelling or you would not have asked me where I was from or something between the lines.



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043


Oh, but you did notice my spelling or you would not have asked me where I was from or something between the lines.


I ask you where you are from because I got the impression (and I was wrong) that you didn't care for our troops.

You obviously have made sacrifices yourself with people that are very close to you. I am sorry for coming across to you the way I did. I appreciate what your family has done and is continueing to do. I will just have to agree to disagree with your views on the President's agenda.

Now that I have read your posting I am going to subscribe and read more of your thoughts before I jump to conclusions. You made me open my eyes and see things your way and I grew from it so here is your vote for ATS. I may not agree with you on everything but your delivery and attitude are tops and deserve attention.

You have voted marg6043 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Keep on posting and have an excellent weekend!


Edit for adding WATS info.....

[edit on 30-3-2007 by ConstantlyWondering]



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConstantlyWondering
I served and my generation won the cold war.


No one won the cold war, as you can not win a battle not fought.
If anything it ended up a stalemate with one side collapsing, and
thusly ending the stand-off.





top topics
 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join