It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House Votes today to Tie Obama's Hands on Iran

page: 5
21
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bakatono
May have been said already, I haven't read all the pages yet, but hey, if the House wants to attack Iran, quit passing sissy little resolutions.

Declare War

That is actually how it is supposed to be done, if they actually followed or cared about the Constitution.

# or get off the pot sissies!

What a bunch of effing idiots.

Please join me in voting against everyone in office. I don't care if you think you are an R or a D, just vote against everyone!


i'll keep the "D"s........the "R"s are the ones since the 2010 election, that have been putting this nation through all kinds of crap...there simply isn't an "equivalency" for both parties




posted on May, 16 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by johngrissom
 


I guess people like you will do anything to prop up millions dying so the rich can hold on to their money. What an utterly sick and confused post man! I just hope it is part of your job to push nonsense and that you don't actually believe it. If you do believe it, then you have some really major issues to deal with and I can't help you even if I wanted to.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by oghamxx
 


First and foremost your quote is from a "Blog" on the Huffington Post from a man who works for Media Matters. Working for Media Matters is the same as working for Obama and the DNC. This is a political hit piece that is taking great liberties in defining the meaning of a single sentence in the "resolution" which is not a Bill.


The House "urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear-weapons capability and opposition to any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat."


It's simply asking, not telling, the President to not rule out military action.

Just more divisive political banter and nothing more.

I suggest learning the difference between a "resolution" and a "Bill". The author from Media Matters who wrote the blog knows the difference. He is just participating in the attempt to divert attention away from Obama's terrible record by throwing enough crap at the wall that they hope some will stick. This is a non-story.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


To address some of your concerns;

Did you miss the very first statement of the OP "Ok it's from the huff post, not my favorite source but still revealing." In researching this topic I found 3 commentaries and the Huff post was the 'least tabloid' .

I do not consider the Huff post / Media matters blog to be it a 'political hit piece' but rather a valid response to a shot across the bow by a dangerous agenda driven influential organization making our greedy (UN)representative puppets pay homage.

In my original research I scribbled a note HR568 instead of HRes568, thus my one negligent reference to it as being a bill.

My specific concerns with the resolution include;

Taken from the text of the resolution; "...preventing the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability". Would you care to define 'capability'. Without any degree of definition virtually all nations have such capability. Upon passage of the resolution will it suddenly be determined that IRAN has already achieved this IL-defined 'capability' thus leaving no option other than war? The sentence should have ended, IMO, without the word.

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(4) affirms that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;

A vital national interest! Would you care to explain that?

There are currently 339 co-sponsors. Try to convince me that many/most are not on board in expectation of campaign funding or endorsement from AIPAC. I hope to make an analysis of both the text and the composition of the co-sponsors after the vote but to date have only noted that neither Ron nor Rand Paul are among the co-sponsors.

I too am saddened by Obama's many failures but I consider among his largest to be doing virtually nothing to reduce class warfare.

I find it very disheartening that you consider a blog/story about this resolution, which 339 representatives have affirmed to be of vital national interest and which paves the way to yet another war, to be a 'non story'.



new topics

top topics
 
21
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join